The article is positive and fairly accurate on the value and nature of the steem and steemit platforms. However, the publisher fails to distinguish steem and steemit.com and limits his analysis of the steem blockchain to the social media industry. Although many of the dapps on the steem platform are social media apps at the moment, such apps like Utopia and soundcloud extend that boundary beyond social.
SMT's will enable any content platform which is much broader than social media to monetize their content. In Ned's most recent interview, he explained Steem as the blockchain for web content. This recent message from Ned and the branding campaign to distinguish steemit from steem in November/December have not fullly materialized. Even though the steem blockchain is receiving a lot of publicity, many journalists are still limiting it to social media or even sometimes just steemit.com. If people discard us a social media blockchain, the potential market/future value of steem is diluted by a high multiple in the eyes of investors.
For the above reasons, I felt compelled to leave a comment elaborating on the above. However, my comment was not accepted. The communities should be deciding what content is acceptable and fit within the native value system, not one publisher or the social media intern. On steem, this type of censorship would not happen assuming the message is not hate message or likewise.
In order to get to $100 and get talented developers to this ecosystem, the correct information and message must be conveyed to the public.
This is my first post and I have been around the platform since October. Nonetheless, I felt compelled to say something after seeing this limited understanding of the platform disseminated by several media. Please politely correct people and educate your peers on the true value of this platform. As of now, apparently reddcoin has more potential and a bigger market cap... What the hell.