RE: I told my YouTube audience "COME TO STEEMIT!"
A valid point, but there is no free lunch. Dilution alone would just cause the price of STEEM to decrease over time and the new users wouldn't have much value in their votes. I think we've had quite a few "Hey, come earn FREE MONIEZ!!!" influencers here which, IMO, set a false expectation for how the economics here actually work. Thankfully, @davidpakman's pitch here was very reasonable.
Steemit certainly isn't pay to play in terms of voting, commenting, and blogging. What is pay to play is earning from the rewards pool. It may not be the curator or content creator who is paying, but someone is (i.e. the investor). Just as you said, for every 80% enjoying the rewards pool, we still need 20% in the investor class to keep the party going. My suggestion was to not exclude them by also appealing to that audience at some point in the future. If every new personality joining Steemit focused 80% on audience and 20% on investors, I think we'd have a nice, sustainable approach to growth.
I can agree with that. I, myself, this tiny little minnow, have personally invested about $200 so far into the platform/into STEEM, because I fully believe in this place and know that my money is spent on a good investment towards helping the platform grow. If I had thousands of dollars to throw into it, I would, too.
I really just want to see this platform explode and help people achieve their dreams by sharing their creative passions with the world, and I know that I will be better equipped to help people more if my upvotes on their content are generating more rewards.
That's true, but like any good company we should ensure that our product is valuable so that people want to buy it, rather than ask people to buy because we need them to so that we stay in business.
Agreed.
For now yes. My hope is that in the long run utilitarian demand for the token will be enough that the system will be sustained even if few people buy Steem as an investment. In the old dynamic with hyperinflationary liquid Steem, it was required that Steem Power sustain the whole economy. In the current system where Steem can be a commodity of exchange, it's possible that demand for money rather than demand for ROI or for influence could sustain the system. For example if only 20% or less of total Steem was vested, with most being tied up in commerce.
That's why I'm more concerned with users than investors. If we have the largest network effect, we will be the best form of money in the crypto space. We're already far more usable for money than Bitcoin is, and we're growing fastest in places where demand for sound money is high (Venezuela and Nigeria, both countries which recently experienced hyperinflation).
And yet, we're getting rekt in terms of investor ROI compared to bitcoin and many other altcoins. Smart investors will buy up other cryptocurrencies even if they know STEEM is "better." They will wait patiently for more investors to catch on to what's happening here and then flood back in because they already know the value. If we all tell the whole story (including the investor potential), we may have a lot of very happy users who decided to drop in a few bucks just to see how it works prior to the future investor flood many of us think is coming.
As for staying in business, I think we're good there. Plenty of witnesses are happy to be block producers and Steemit, the company, has plenty of STEEM to pay for their expenses.
I think you're right to be more concerned with users. I even think 80/20 is a fairly good metric for that. I'm just hoping we don't forget about the 20% completely. Let's throw them some love too. :)
Couldn't agree more.
Suggesting investing outside money isn't asking for charity.
When large institutions realise how useful SP can be in influencing conversations; it'll be too late for mom n pop to enjoy any gains.