The steem reward system can't decide between altruism and egoism - Time to decide what content is worth?

Steemit markets itself and the blockchain as an altruistic environment.

Proof-of-Brain is a type of tokens rewards algorithm that encourages people to create and curate content.

The reality is there is no proof-of-brain and the encouragement is so flawed it doesn't really work. Steem is full of dishonest content claiming it to be things it could be but is not and if you think about it carefully it is not designed to be.

Steem is an asset

Steem is an asset designed to inflate. An asset that has but the value someone is willing to pay for it. Marketing can claim what it wants but if nobody buys Steem for real dollars it is but a number.

It is an asset with many faces which can be used in many different ways. It's important to note that the content on the blockchain has very limited value. The content has it's biggest value during the first 7 days where i somehow serves as a means to 'mine' the asset. Once the asset has been payed its only value is to possibly attract new buyers (audience) for upcoming content. The content can no longer generate value, can no longer be altered, is not owned, can't be traded, ... It has lost its economical value.

This is contrary to a normal blog where content might continue to generate value through add revenues. Good content might create revenues for years and as it grows more popular it might generate more value. Not so on the Steem blockchain.

Where does the money come from

Despite all efforts to explain where the money comes from the only real reason is because people buy it. If so one has to wonder why people buy it. To be fair the majority buys/holds crypto as an investment, because they are convinced value will rise and that's no different for Steem.

Once people own something it depends on the people and the rules of the game what they do with it and rules are not set up to (re)distribute Steem for Proof-of-Brain. There is no real incentive to reward the brains needed to create the next masterpiece. Some mechanisms are in play to give the impression that is the real intention but it is more than obvious they don't work at all. If an anonymous next Einstein were to write his masterful brain work he would not be rewarded for it at all on Steem.

What does clearly work is optimizing the investment while not caring for the content. This is not advertised but is clearly the way most people make money on the Steem blockchain. Selling your vote is obviously more profitable than using it yourself. Guess what an investor, wanting to optimize his investment, does? If the rules allow for it he will try to optimize and it is his full right to do so. And that's clearly a working incentive.

If you were to invest in real estate. Would you buy 10 houses and hope the price increases? Or would you buy 10 houses and rent them to 10 people while at same time hoping price increases?

Future

Steem needs buyers to have value, buyers want the best return on investment and have a better alternative than curating making Steem more something it doesn't claim to be than what it does claim to be. Does this make it a fraud? A ponzi? I don't think so. Is it sustainable in the long run? I don't think so either. Will they still rent their 10 houses to if the rent becomes so competitive the profit is getting too low? Will they keep having an audience to rent to?

We all should be aware what our place is in this and what our intentions are with it. We can't complain about voting services and at the same time use them. I used them when they were new and when I was ignorant but stopped using them for a while. Personally I don't notice a difference. We can't complain about shitty content and not do something about it.

Positive changes

Lately I'm seeing a lot of accounts go dead, people leaving in frustration because it is more what it should not be then what it could be. But at the same time I'm seeing quite a few respected accounts criticizing the mechanisms at work and although I do not see them offering solutions I see the mood, the unwritten rules, shifting. Using voting services is starting to make you look bad and selfish and why would I care about you if you only care about yourself?

At the same time I'm seeing more and more initiatives that selfishly care for the content and the communities more than for the money. I might be naive but I think the pendulum will reverse and some sort of equilibrium will be found. In the meantime I'll continue with my altruistic version of reality and ignore the egoism fighting it in my own way.