RE: A higher Steem price in a few wishful steps...
It's pretty much insane that steemit.inc don't seem to have a press officer. Or maybe andrachy is meant to perform PR as well as generalized marketing and communications.
My last job was in Comms and I had to handle multiple roles including internal and external marketing. Well written, strategic press releases are integral to building reputation. We could do with a bit of that right now.
You're suggestions seem pretty good @jrcornel
I'm not 100% sure why (if they're earning 1.2 million/year from advertising) steemit.inc can't buy back steem and either burn it to inflate the token price, or use it to fund the SPS. I was very vocal in discord when the SPS was first proposed that it shouldn't come from inflation. People moderating in the witness chat back then shot me down without actually addressing the point I was making, and seemed to be working an agenda tbh. My point was that from any informed content creators perspective, funding from authors rewards is a further insult in a system that already doesn't work well to the original stated USP of steem, 'rewarding good content.'
From my perspective, I think the first 3 of your points are the most valid. Press releases about all of those issues:
- Announce $100k per month in ad revenue
- Announce steemit.inc will be selling no more steem on the open market
- Announce SMT and Communities development are in final stages, coming out soon
should be getting sent to all major crypto news entities. Also, more generalized marketing on traditional social media. I mean, we're in the age of the millennial. If we could just entice the crypto-savy on twitter to cross post with share2steem and get involved in the community here it could make a huge impact on steem's price.
There's a tone that could be done but isn't.
Very good points. I agree.
Regarding the SPS funding coming from inflation, I don't like it either, especially not all of it coming from the author pool. It likely is going to continue to be a drain on steem prices as whatever projects get funding are immediately going to be dumping that steem for fiat... and I imagine the majority of these projects will fail in adding any real value to the ecosystem, some won't hopefully, but most likely will.
We're on the same page for sure. I see it as somewhat of a flawed idea, as it can be used as a money grab. I'm sure that many legit projects will build using SPS, but as you point out how many will succeed?
That means under this current proposed system, the content creator is expected to pay (from low ass rewards at it is) for all sorts of projects they might know nothing about? It's crazy. If I could choose to approve, or not, a project I might feel differently.
I got bored of pushing these points in discord after a while as no one seemed to want to acknowledge it was even a problem. I had one person say to me:
'why shouldn't it come from authors? It's not fair if it cones from witnesses as authors are the biggest drain on the pool.'
This is laughable. As I understand it, top 100 are earning a yearly salary through running the witness node.
What's fair - if it has to come from inflation - is that it comes from all inflation, across the board. Author, curator and witness rewards. Otherwise, it's another fck u to content creators who are the current community and audience of steem at this time. If they keep getting shafted like this over and over again, the whole system will collapse when they all leave lol
And don't forget the interest to SP holders as another inflation category. But yes I completely agree. I supported it coming from multiple sources as well, as did the vast majority of the community that commented, yet here we are with it all coming from the author rewards... sigh.