What is up with the steemit hate?!
Have you guys seen this epicenter video?
I watch the epicenter videos quite regularly. I was surprised at how:
- uninformed these guys were about steem in general
- the negative and biased questions that were asked
I have never seen such interrogative video on this channel. I can't seem to understand where all this steem hate is coming from. It is a little odd to me, almost like people are hiding something. Seriously how come these guys in their "research" did not even open an account and tried out the platform.
For me personally we are all in the same boat or at least in the same industry. It is totally ok to ask the hard questions, but I just felt that it was taken way too far in this instance.
That said, I think Ned had a little bit of hard time in this one and was a bit defensive. Some of his answers were a bit complicated and evasive as well.
I was all excited to see Ned on this podcast and then the whole thing turned out to be something like a police interrogation. I can't help to notice that so many bitcoiners are making fun of and ridiculing this platform. Andreas Antonopoulos the other day made fun of steem and called it "sounds scummy". There are ethereum panels about proof of stake, where all kinds of protocols are discussed but DPOS is omitted.
To me steem is a bit of an elephant in the room.
- It is the most performant blockchain I am aware of with:
- free transactions
- 3 second blocks
- a stable currency
- and a true mainstream application that is used every day by pretty girls
I do not understand why these facts are not celebrated. Why are crypto guys still posting on medium?
Although it was mentioned that steem had been successful, none of the above was mentioned in the podcast. And especially the host did not really care to actually understand what steem was all about.
I do not know what happened in the beginning of steem, but is concentration of wealth not common and standard in all cryptocurrencies. Why is this such an issue?
I don't get it.
Hi guys,
Brian here from Epicenter. Thanks for your comments and criticism. I can totally understand where you are coming from. Let me try to explain.
Before the episode, I was wondering whether we should cancel the episode completely. We have never had a project on the show that has seen such widespread criticisms and accusations of being a scam. We try to be very careful at Epicenter to only have legitimate projects on the show and have received comments countless times that we don't challenge guests enough. In the end, we decided to do the episode, but with that background I felt I had to challenge Ned directly on the accusations.
We try to get to a thorough understanding of every topic before the show, but we don't always succeed in that. I did have a Steemit account before and looked around a bit, Sebastien posted some episodes here, we looked at the whitepaper, etc. But still - there is no question that I wish I had been better prepared.
In my view, Ned handled our questions very well and after the show I did feel that I had been too confrontational. I continued reading for several hours through the Bitcoin Talk threads and other articles to understand better what happened during the launch of the project. The main accusation there seems to be that the project intentionally made it hard for non-company people to mine Steem so that much of the Steem would end up with the company.
What I only really wrapped my head around after the show was that the distribution of coins ended up not dissimilar to those of a tokensale, while potentially avoiding legal issues. So I understand why this was done that way (whether or not it was intentionally made tricky for others to mine). Especially since the company didn't sell much during the bubble, I feel okay with how the Steem launch was conducted and if somebody told me today the project is a scam, I would disagree with the person. So you're right that I should have gotten to that point before the episode and I would have been more understanding.
I hope that explains a bit why this ended up an unusually confrontational episode.
There is no question in my mind that Steem has succeeded in a pretty massive way in building a vibrant community and a blockchain application that is widely used. That is a fantastic accomplishments - so hats off to all of you for that! (And this thread is the best example for it.)
Thanks for doing the interview. Personally, I thought the questions are reasonable and should be asked. I would rather have an open debate to find out where things can be fixed. Your concerns are not unfounded. There really is a layer of complexity for those generally outside the sphere. It's been working like butter for me for the past few months, so it's certainly difficult to comprehend when someone doesn't seem to get it lol, but that's totally understandable.
Don't be too sorry, I think it's reasonable that people still have lots of suspicion because those things haven't been explained clearly enough. Generally I think @ned is great guy but sometimes he is just not very good at explaining basic stuff. He and @dan are constantly looking forward and rarely stop and look back.
This was a big problem also for Bitshares. It made some seriously great innovations but @dan didn't take enough time to explain those for general audience.
@dan wrote this post before the launch of Steem: https://bytemaster.github.io/article/2016/03/27/How-to-Launch-a-Crypto-Currency-Legally-while-Raising-Funds/
"You just need thick skin and the ability to ignore the Bitcoin pharisees and the angry mob they incite to nail you to a cross for failing to sacrifice your creation to the prevailing mining gods."
This happened, and @dan and @ned have had thick skin. But there should have been much more thoroughly explanation why the launch was made like that. It's just really bad PR that there is still lots of people who believe that Steem is a scam. Very little have been done to fix the situation.
Also IMHO @ned failed in the interview because he didn't promote the innovations that Steem blockchain has. It's transactionfeeless blockchain, which is one of the biggest innovations of the year in the blockchain scene! That would have been a great talking point for your audience who are probably more interested in underlying technology than most people.
And the whitepaper is becoming obsolete because there have been so many upgrades to the system. Currently it doesn't give a clear picture of what Steem is and how it actually works. Hopefully it will be rewritten in the near future.
I do think the complexity of Steemit is a serious issue. Reading through Tone Vays' tweetstorm on Steem he points out at various times that mechanism and entire paragraphs are incomprehensible. Perhaps that's not intentional, but when one can't understand the structure and economics of the system in a reasonable time, it contributes to people looking at it with suspicion. I think focusing on that is would help Steem a lot.
I don't think that Steem is actually too complex or hard to understand. We just lack good documentation for the system. Devs haven't understood yet that documentation that is comprehensible for layman is very much needed for marketing purposes.
Yes this interview was very tense.i actualy started feeling sorry for Ned. Fair enough there were lot of criticism on steem but just few sentences warning Ned at the begining that thus is how it will be would have been great. Btw Ned handled it really well. And hey good on you Brian posting this on steem. I guess you are getting more attention here than on youtube or other media.
it is great to have you on the platform. I am looking forward yo see your posts here :) You should start with short #introduceyourself post :)
I think, most in crypto tends to be get rich quick scheme and most people you see/talk usually follow the hype. There are very few people who takes technology seriously and understands it. I think, time will force them to take Steem seriously and check technology behind it. What also could be said that, in interview they seem to worry about majority power held by Steemit, that's correct but those funds are being used for development and to pay for new registered users. Imagine, there is few million users registering next few month and everyone of them gets initial Steem (40, 50, 10, depends on parameters) which in itself is a lot of stake.
The sad truth is that the constant steem bashing from crypto insiders is the result of massive agenda driven bias. what they choose to focus on, the questions they ask, the antagonism in their tone, it all comes from a desire to see what they view as competition fail. It is the same sordid approach as recently exemplified by the DNC's treatment of Bernie Sanders.
The fact that these intellectually shallow attacks are happening is a clear sign that steem is getting to them. It is sad that the character of these people must be so shallow that they cannot recognise the vision and success of others.
As far as concentration of wealth, I think it is common with cryptocurrencies but it is a bad thing. Not because wealth itself is bad but because of the nature of cryptocurrencies and what that means for stability, etc. I don't know if steam is worse than average in that regard or not though.
I think concentration of wealth is natural. I personally have no issue with the founders also having a majority stake. Usually all great things need strong leadership which best is accomplished by such a concentration of wealth and stake. This does not explain to me all this craze.
I think anybody who develops a great product deserves to get rich off of it. I'm just saying that too large of a concentration of a particular cryptocurrency in one place is sort of the antithesis of what a cryptocurrency is all about. The distributed decentralized nature of a cryptocurrency is what gives it stability and resilience. I'm speaking in general terms and again I don't know that steam is deserving of any special criticism in this regard. It's my second favorite cryptocurrency right behind Gridcoin at the moment :)
I agree with you, it would be nice if wealth would be distributed a but more even. The world is often driven by dominating forces though. In bitcoin the concentration of wealth is a lot higher than in any other fiat currency. In steem we have a big steemit company that owns about 50% and many whales who own a few percentages. I think this is not a bad situation.
I think some healthy dialog about this would also be healthy but what we see in people calling steem a scam and interrogating Ned this way I did not think was super productive.
No, it certainly isn't fair to call it a scam. Cryptocurrencies and blockchain technologies in general are still in their infancy and as such today's cryptocurrencies are still highly speculative and potentially super volatile but there is certainly a huge future ahead for them. "Unlimited potential" is not too strong of a term. I don't really trust any of today's cryptocurrencies enough to seriously invest but I certainly think it is worthwhile to mine Gridcoin as I already use BOINC and to participate in the steem economy here. I like cryptocurrencies that serve a particular purpose beyond just being a currency. Steem may or may not survive in the long run but I don't think anyone is being misled about anything.
Decentralization in young systems is highly overrated. When the system is just born, it should be mostly centralized so that the development will be more efficient. When the technology matures, the decentralization can take place.
But they are different design paradigms. It can be difficult or impossible to transition from one to the other without creating something entirely new. Something designed from the ground up to be decentralized is going to generally be superior (at being decentralized) then something you try to decentralize later.
Nope. Most crypto projects that are fully decentralized from the beginning have failed and will fail. In the real world it's really difficult to have a decentralized system that actually produces high quality service.
It's much more easier to let founders have the control over project until the technology is advanced and there is real community that can get shit done. There is no benefit of giving power to newbies who do not have any idea how the system works or how to develop it. Many times they don't even share the same long term vision.
Steem is fully capable of decentralization in later phases of development. Only thing that is needed is to sell or give away steems that Steemit, inc. owns.
Yes, it is difficult. That doesn't mean that it isn't ultimately the best way to create a secure, stable cryptocurrency in the long run though.
This post has been ranked within the top 80 most undervalued posts in the second half of Dec 21. We estimate that this post is undervalued by $6.05 as compared to a scenario in which every voter had an equal say.
See the full rankings and details in The Daily Tribune: Dec 21 - Part II. You can also read about some of our methodology, data analysis and technical details in our initial post.
If you are the author and would prefer not to receive these comments, simply reply "Stop" to this comment.
nuff said
Wow, nice post. I was excited to see Ned on epicenter. I feel like there are a lot of Steem skeptics out there (including the hosts of the show). At least we get some direct answers to their honest concerns. It is sad that my favorite features of Steem are constantly overlooked. Thank you for highlighting them in this post.
Absolutely! Thank you for this comment.
It is easy to see the bad and overlook the good. We are driven more by fear and pain then pleasure and opportunity.
Well said and great post ! Still following and steeming on ! 👍😊🎅🎄
I will ultimately say many people have most likely followed Tone Vays and they may adopt his ideas on Steemit. He has many times said that he believes it is a scam. So many people are obviously skeptical.
This was a great interview, thank you Ned and epiccenter
Thanks Craig. I'm glad you liked it.
They are just jealous : Merry Christmas Steemit : https://steemit.com/merrychristmas/@lasseehlers/merry-christmas-for-angelo-son-and-lasse-father-to-all-steemians
I listened to this also and I thought @ned did a good job.
Yes Steemit was under attack, and to some degree so was his integrity.
But he kept calm and answered their questions as best he could.
It was clear that those interviewing him didn't get it. Their focus is all about crypto and its intricacies.
Ned is all about the community and what crypto means for people and content. For him crypto and the blockchain is a means to an end, not the reason for getting out of bed in the morning.
At least that's what I got out of it. That, and his quiet passion for this to succeed.
If I'm going to invest a huge chunk of my time (and soon my dollars) I'd rather it went on something Ned is building than something his interviewers are building. In the end, both projects may fail, but Ned's project will not fail because he didn't put his heart and soul into it.
As for their comments about him getting rich off the platform - these guys came up with an idea, had the guts to run with it, did the work to make it happen, earned a bunch of money, and are still in the game!
That's not a pump and dump scheme. They now have the fiscal proof that this can work, and the comfort that they can invest in developer time to make it better and better.
Those people knocking Steemit and STEEM are going to be kicking themselves in a couple of years. And Ned probably won't even remember the interview.
Very well said.