You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: The STEEM/HIVE Ratio Is Approaching 1. What Could This Mean?
My guesses:
- High & guaranteed ROI for bidbot investors on STEEM, as you noted
- #burnsteem25
- Hive stakeholders looting the treasury via loose management of the HPS as @the-gorilla noted
- The existence of a layer-2 ecosystem - i.e. value that might otherwise be invested in HIVE gets invested in layer-2 tokens, instead.
- (I think this phenomenon limits the value of TRX and ETH, too... the ecosystem gains value from the layer-2 token, but the layer-1 token is diluted. I half-expected STEEM's price to suffer if SMTs had been deployed, although I still think it would've been good for adoption and for the overall ecosystem.)
- Possibly also 20% interest on the HBD, which might create excess selling pressure by increasing the virtual supply and new HIVE per day more rapidly than STEEM's corresponding values. Steem switched to declining daily new STEEM in November. I haven't looked at the numbers or kept up with rule changes on Hive, but with 20% interest on HBDs in savings, I suspect that their new tokens per day value is still continuing to grow at this point.
At first, I had #club5050 and #club100 on the list, but I removed them. In looking at powered-up Steem metrics and numbers of minnow/dolphin/orca accounts over the last couple years, I don't really see much indication that those programs really make much difference to overall staking totals or to STEEM's price.
How interesting. What seemed like a big advantage for attracting investment may turn out to be more harmful than helpful.
I agree with you, I would also like to see layer-2 token here. Although I also do not fully understand how exactly they can be useful for STEEM. It probably depends on the project that creates them.
This is quite disappointing. I had hope that the clubs would have an effect.
I still think it may turn out to be useful. To me, the problem with the way that they did it is that they basically just did "set and forget". IMO, a more thoughtful and dynamic method is needed for finding optimal values at any point in time.
It's just me guessing, though. An actual analysis has not been done (AFAIK). I could easily be wrong.