STEEM is 10 Ranks Lower than BitShares!? What the...
I've been doing some posts about STEEM and it's value, looking at other cryptocurrencies and how they have been doing in comparison. In checking coinmarketcap.com I was scrolling through the other coins, and saw BitShares up at 41, while STEEM is 10 ranks lower at 51.
I was shocked. What is this madness?
BitShares has over 2 billion tokens out, while STEEM has over 300 million. STEEM is worth more, and having less tokens should make it more valuable, but not enough to beat BitShares or other's like XRP/Ripple at over 99 billion tokens that are worth less per token but have so much more that the market cap puts them higher.
I guess quantity does matter in the marketcap game, despite thinking less is better.
Bitcoin is highly regarded for having a limited supply which is much lower than others. Bitcoin and it's forks (Bitcoin Cash) have about 17 million coins. Other chains like DASH have 8 million, and ZCash at 5 million. So while having a low maximum amount of tokens means a limited supply, and potentially higher value, it's not necessarily the case. ZCash ahs 3 million less tokens out there, but is worht $10 less per coin compared to DASH.
Do you think cryptos with lower quantities are more valuable? Or does it not matter in the end?
https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@edicted/unit-bias-fallacy-21-million-bitcoins-is-not-scarce
Steem actually has fewer tokens than Bitcoin. All that matters is the smallest unit of transfer. A Bitcoins contains 100 million Satoshi. If we redefine the value of a Steem coin (because it's totally arbitrary) to having 100 million pieces (instead of its current 1000) then there would only be 3000 Steem coins total.
However, none of this matters. It's all arbitrary. What really matters is inflation and how that new money is distributed. You'll notice in that post I wrote 3 months ago that there were only 277 million Steem in circulation. It's only been three months and we've already experienced 8% inflation! We're already up to 302 million coins. Ouch.
This is what we get for taking out credit with SBD coins. During the good times, half of our inflation gets kicked out to SBD and the value of Steem surges. This is especially true with the way coins are powered up and down.
Powering up coins makes the market more volatile because there is way less liquidity on exchanges.
During the bad times SBD gets converted back into Steem coins. During the bull run 25 SBD would get created on a post paying out $50. That same post today would of had a face value of $2, creating 1 SBD. Those 24 SBD that should have never existed are now being turned into Steem coins.
When Steem was $4 a coin, no big deal. You'd get 1 Steem for each 4 SBD you burned.
Today you get more than 2 Steem for every SBD burned. If we didn't have a haircut rule it would be 4, seeing as Steem coins are worth 25 cents. The haircut rule is artificially forcing the value of Steem coins to 40 cents so we don't get totally screwed.
Still, it's obvious that this system isn't working. We just created a year's worth of inflation in 3 months. SBD doesn't get burned until it dips under $1. The SBD we print during spikes comes back to haunt us on the dip.
These 25 million new coins alone are enough to completely tank the market temporarily. Combine that with FUD and ned not buying enough runway for his company and we have a real problem on our hands.
Good to know. I've always seen SBD as superfluous, only a convenient way to convey monetary relevance for those who think in USD terms. It adds complexity for nothing, and as you point out, has negative consequences. Everything should just be STEEM, and the value of posts can stay the same, as a measure of the value of STEEM.
I hate sbd with a passion. It's basically steem inflation that's under the radar that only becomes noticeable during steem price crashes.
Just read your other post. I have to wonder if the intent wasn't for this exact situation to happen. I would guess the odds of those deciding these issues being some of the larger holders of SBDs is high, as well as I mentioned on your post how the bidbots were taking it in charging SBD and the loss for the buyers were incurred when they got half of it back as SP which was always lower than the SBD half.
Those damn bidbots... just money sloshing around, not doing anything good for society. A perversion of the social-media valuation purpose of the original blogging app, not to mention making reputation worthless as a measure of anything any longer.
May 2017, I referenced a post by ppcman which dissected this issue:
https://steemit.com/cryptocurrency/@intelliguy/do-you-know-what-coinmarketcap-com-is-i-do-not-think-you-do-we-have-a-serious-problem
...the actual post is on peercointalk forums but it has a great breakdown on how to manipulate coinmarketcap.com
P.S. Bitshares is a good decentralized exchange. If you want to focus on something, go after USDT and do some critical analysis on how that token can be scammed. That's the ugly truth these days. :)
I was just looking at it in terms of how STEEM used to be ahead. BitShares is one of the first decentralized exchanges. Too bad others have done more marketing to attract people and gain funding... Centralization of decision making helps in that respect.
I've been watching and even occasionally writing about our slow steady decline in the Marketspace.
In addition to this, we have a token that has around 10k accounts that hold over 500 Steem. As we both know many of those accounts are duplicate accounts. I own 2 of them, many others own multiple accounts as well.
That means a very few people are interested and invested in the growth of Steem. In my opinion it would be better to have Steem in more hands, which would likely have happened if we had more tokens.
How does having more STEEM in accounts help the situation? Bitcoin doesn't have many people with much BTC... yet there it is ;)
It isn't MORE steem it is Steem in more people's wallets. More people who have a vested (literally) stake in making it a success.
I think the structure of Steem Inc is a problem, it’s highly centralized so it’s just like any company. It can go bust, or fail in the competition. If the management team and support staff are not very flexible and nimble, its future will be in doubt!
I am not very optimistic at the moment! I have seen good companies went down because of inefficient and incapable management! Let’s hope this is not the case here! Some stronger companies will always want to take over weaker companies with potential assets!
Posted using Partiko iOS
I tend to agree with your assessment. It's not a well developed team in terms of management :/
The markets are insane. There's no point in trying to figure out their logic...
Insane in the membrane. Regardless, we can see how certain measure are promoting or disfavoring investments ;)
Its hightime to buy tons of steem 😅
Is it... I dunno... with big bots, and so much exploitation by original members that goes unnoticed... will it change... doesn't inspire much as a honest platform for how the rewards are being distributed for a social-media valuation of content site.
It's sad.........very sad......but, let's wait and see....:)...
Hi @krnel!
Your post was upvoted by @steem-ua, new Steem dApp, using UserAuthority for algorithmic post curation!
Your UA account score is currently 7.255 which ranks you at #68 across all Steem accounts.
Your rank has dropped 3 places in the last three days (old rank 65).
In our last Algorithmic Curation Round, consisting of 239 contributions, your post is ranked at #7.
Evaluation of your UA score:
Feel free to join our @steem-ua Discord server
I think it does not matter.
That BTS is higher is quite crazy, especially since the one thing they do well gets used very little and there is only limited development there.