RE: Proposed Changes to Steem Economy
I have powered back up tens of thousands of dollars. Most of that was at much higher prices (some probably at least 10x the current price, if not higher, though most at 2-5x).
I have no strong expectation of this proposal being a magic bullet that will suddenly recover all those losses. I do think it is an improvement overall and gives Steem a better chance to succeed assuming other good work continues to be done at a reasonable pace, such as making the platform more compelling and less narrowly targeted as well as better marketing and promotion (actually just having some at all would be good).
My biggest concern is that the focus in this proposal on tweaking coin parameters is seen as a "fix" and takes the pressure off of absolutely essential platform development. The large cuts to witness rewards will withdraw funding (ideally not abruptly) from valuable independent developers and development efforts, making this an even more centralized ecosystem dependent on Steemit for funding and development. More than ever, Steemit needs to step up on creating something with broad appeal and utility. If not then the changes in this proposal will not matter. At best they will buy some time.
Agree. However, I DO like the attempt to make Steem a viable cryptocurrency. IMO, that will be good for the platform overall and remove some of the ponzi stigma (however unjustified).
Always a voice of reason. Thanks @smooth. When I saw this post, I quickly scrolled down to see if you had replied. I agree with everything you've said here (including a more gradual approach to changing the percentages).
This is a complicated economic experiment. I agree, these changes aren't a "fix" because ultimately we can't really create value out of nothing. Bitcoin supports a million dollars+ in new value a day because investors want to buy in. The same can't be said for STEEM... yet. That's the main concern I have with too much tweaking too early on. If we try to "fix" things with adjusting this nob or pulling that lever, are we really any different than the central bankers playing with interest rates? Sometimes things need to work themselves out over time with some winners and some losers, even if that means I'm one of the losers (short term). Some things just take time.
I bought in at 10x some of the lower prices today. Some bought at much, much, higher. The discouraging thing is to think anyone could just show up today, spend much less, and have much more SP. That said, what really has given me value here is the platform and community itself. I'm even working on my first fiction post. Seriously. :) The value of this platform is the relationships and the creativity it brings. Like bitcoin, maybe it just needs a few years for enough people to realize that as well for the value of the token to catch up with it. I'm interested in long term investing here. The high interest rates (I mean in terms of the changing VEST to Steem conversion) are one of the reasons I bought it when I did, knowing they would settle down later on. At the same time, if the fundamental economics are actually flawed, then surely we have to do something. Then again, 10,000 bitcoin for a pizza sounds pretty flawed as well. It's all a matter of perspective and timescale.
I'm looking forward to whatever marketing takes place in the future. I think the social media platforms of the world will eventually have to adapt to the new paradigm Steemit is bringing to the category. Whatever the future of social media looks like, I'm quite proud of being an early adopter here on the blockchain, even if that means I lost out in the beginning. Thankfully, I never invested more than I was willing to lose.
If the price keeps going down, how do you reinvest at higher levels? That is an amazing thing.
well said!
agreed with both stella and smooth that these parameter changes do little to help increase the broader appeal of the platform. If we get some of the things built that I am trying to get done, I suspect you will see this change ^.^