Thoughts on some Steemfest talks
So first off...Yaaaaay! My question got asked! :D If you look at the video the last question Andrarchy asks Ned was the one I posed. Simple, but I think something everyone here would want to know, which is where does he see Steem in 5 years. Unfortunately, Ned didn't really give much of an answer, which was a bit disappointing, but overall so far all the talks have been really interesting.
So some thoughts on what I've seen so far.
Ned said in regards to Steemit, that as far as he's concerned it's in "maintenance mode" and Steemit Inc.'s resources are focused on developments of the blockchain and Destiny, which I assume will eventually be the frontend to rule them all. So I interpret that to mean that complaining about Steemit at this point is a waste of your energy. This is what we're stuck with for the foreseeable future, so if you want a better front end use Steempeak, Busy, or Esteem, because I think all major developments for Steemit are basically done. Honestly, I'm fine with this. I think it's better to start fresh than to try to polish a turd.
I also thought it was really interesting what Ned said about what he saw as the major innovations of blockchain so far.
One being Bitcoin, offering freedom from banks and true ownership of you money, plus all the other awesomeness it offers.
Two being the ICO model, allowing for an innovative new way of funding projects, which I also think is great, but I think it's sort of like Kickstarter in that when KS first came out it was like this answer to the prayers of indie people seeking funding, but then the first few BIG projects failed, and the first few scams came out and regular people realized the risks with putting money into a project...that it may never come to fruition. I have personal experience with this as well. This had a bit of a negative backlash but overall the innovation was a positive one. I think the same will prove true with ICO's.
Three being Steem and it's distribution model, because before this, the big issue is how do you get crypto into the hands of the masses? I hadn't really thought about Steem from the perspective of that being the MAIN goal. To get people holding crypto, with a secondary goal of getting them to use it to do stuff. If you think about it, what's the point of building some great application if people aren't holding any crypto in the first place? One sort of really needs to come before the other.
When asked about where he saw Steem in five years, Ned basically said five years was too long, and that he was more focused on what was going to happen within one to two years, but then he didn't really say where he saw things in that time frame either, so that was a bit disappointing. I have a lot of ideas in terms of use cases that I think Steem would work great for. Obviously funding all sorts of projects. Through upvotes or delegation. I think this is a really powerful aspect of Steem. I could see comics, indie games, short films, animation, all really finding a home here as a platform that empowers them to make awesome content and survive, even thrive at the same time, but of course I'm seeing this through my artist and content creator lens. It would have been great to hear where Ned sees things going.
What he did say was that the next step was seeing businesses thriving using blockchain tech. Similar to Steem Monsters. I get that. There was this huge bubble of speculation and all the coins that came out promising to "DISRUPT" this or that. Man I got tired of hearing people use that word. Anyway, there's still very few projects that have some real tangible thriving business that's not built on speculation, and for crypto to reach the next level it really needs to become useful. I think Steem is really leading the charge on this front and this is why I still feel like Steem is the most undervalued crypto.
I also watched the talks with peeps from Steem Monsters, Curie, Steempeak, Steemplus, Bitshares, and a couple more I think.
I'm still a big fan of Steempeak, I haven't really gotten into Steem Monsters, but it seems really interesting. I'm just not into those sorts of games though. Learning about Bitshares was interesting, and the lady from curie said what I would expect someone from curie to say which I totally agree with by the way, which in general is support the community, that's most important. Help yourself by helping others. Curate...in a nutshell.
Anyway, you should check out the video if you haven't yet. I figured there would be more posts with people talking about this, but it was actually a bit hard to find. I only have words for you today, and no art, but I really wanted to chat about this stuff, it's really cool to me and hopefully to you too! :D
Gonna stop talking now. Thanks for looking peeps!
Holy crap — the video is over six hours long.
"Maintenance mode." I never cared much about bells and whistles; the superficial stuff, UI. It always worked fine for me and if I didn't know how to do something, I'd just learn. I hope "maintenance mode" means maintain it though. There are some issues and much like a rust spot on a car, eventually it'll be enough to take over if nothing is done. Sure, the blockchain runs fine, much like a rusty car, but the property value is my main concern. Nobody wants to buy a rusty car and if a rusty car is parked in the driveway, the house for sale next door won't be worth it's full potential. They want app development, but if the flagship sinks, who's going to invest? Delegation is a terrible idea. I'd like to see developers invest, and maybe take in delegation during the first stages of development, but if that app can't float on it's own without the delegation, it's useless. That's where this 50/50 stuff comes into play. That's guaranteed income in the form of curation rewards to those developers behind the apps and rewards for contributors who give people a reason to look at these apps, if they are content based. People say, "Who will produce content if they 'only' get 50%?" It's like they've never heard of Youtube. Google takes 45% of all ad revenue generated by content producers. I'm rambling. You're right, probably pointless to talk about it now. Probably best to let these folks figure it out on their own, the hard way, in a couple years, which is unfortunate.
Yea, I think delegation should basically act as a kickstart to new ventures, not a permanent source of revenue, I think that's one of the things Ned was mentioning, seeing thriving businesses on the blockchain being a next big step.
I think Steemit is fine for us hardcore types, but I do think we need something that's as accessible as a typical social media site. I think the ideal situation would be a Steem frontend that is just better or comparable to other social sites just through design and features, but as a secondary aspect, you're also earning money. While I think from a development standpoint that's probably a tall order, the benefit we have is we have lots of things to look at to "make it better than" so it's not like a lot of new stuff has to be invented or imagined, just some creative improvements on what already exists.
I think right now Steemit is the flagship, but I don't think it has to be. Once all these other frontends get to the point to where you can sign up new accounts in a easy way, there shouldn't be any need for there to be a "main" site.
To listen to the audio version of this article click on the play image.
Brought to you by @tts. If you find it useful please consider upvoting this reply.