You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Was the Launch of Steem a Scam or the Only Legal Way? - Thoughts on Steem by Charlie Shrem a Week Later
They got too many tokens before the actual launch into PoS. This way they control most of the system, hence they can even sensor people. If they see users like you, who will bring more people in, due to their influence in the crypto communities, they will give you part of their shares by voting you. If they vote you, you gain a lot of money, without actually deserving it. No damn article, especially on steem it, actually deserves 10.000$+. Satoshi might control 1/15 of the supply, but :
- He doesn't control mining and he can't. They can vote themselves to forge/mine/validate transactions based on their DPoS model.
- He doesn't control any social networks build on top of Bitcoin like the YoursNetwork.
Also Bytemaster, aka Dan Larimer scammed the BitShares users countless times in many ways and created a financially stupid DAO/blockchain
" If they see users like you, who will bring more people in, due to their influence in the crypto communities, they will give you part of their shares by voting you. If they vote you, you gain a lot of money, without actually deserving it."
Wether is undeserving is your opinion but I see it like this. Now I have alot of Steem Power and I'm financially invested in the success of Steem. I'm going to go out and get others to use it and author content. They are using myself and others for marketing.
I think that a lot of people see these numbers at the bottom of posts and comments and think somehow that the poster has this money and they can run off and buy themselves a maserati or something. Or have a big weekend with hookers and coke perhaps. But remember, it splits between all 3 tokens, in fact only 1/3 or so, maybe less, can be instantly sold, the rest you wait a week to move it to the tradeable token, and the Steem Power, you only get that back a little at a time over a period of 2 years.
This is an intentional design and the mania about the subject of post rewards never takes this into account. The purpose of this is to automatically give you a stake in continuing to support the system because if it falls, your vested stakes will decline in value.
You sir, are clearly paying too much for your hookers and coke! I know for an absolute fact that charlie can buy at least 7 hookers and 8 kilos of Columbian finest with the money from this post alone!
That would just be one night, surely!
But that's how a good ponzi works. At this moment Steemit is extremely centralized and if they don't like something, it disappears. It is a centralised website and centralised permissioned blockchain. I hope that with your intelligence and knowledge, that you can see that PoS systems are problematic and especially if the founders or whoever else holds a lot of power in the system.
I am not saying an article is worthless, but it can't be worth that much, on a platform that has no source of income i.e advertisments. Steem is based totally on speculation and it distributes money from people that have just bought steem and steem dollars to the previous people.
To put it this way : with no new users buying Steem or SBD, the platform can't survive. And that's what a ponzi is. But it is a great ponzi, because everyone is making lots of money, thinking that they are in a decentrilised platform, producing something amazing, when what actually happens is that they talk about how great steem is and Dan is giving them money.
I am sorry Charlie, but the same think that put you in prison, apart from the assholes in the government, is your greed. You want the money, you got some money and that's sweet. So it doesn't matter if it is illegal or the source doesn't make sense (i.e making money by taxing people on the communist steemit), you want it.
"An article can't be worth X?"
What ever happened to subjective value theory? Of course it can. Facebook accepted pictures and videos for any customer that signed up. They paid for hard drive space for cat pictures and pictures of people's meals for years before monitizing their investment. They were paying for customer content, they just we're paying Seagate ..not you.
Of course it can. It's based on inflation, which is just a way of redistributing wealth. If the market cap stays the same, it just means that those who get the new money benefit at the expense of those who own the old money.
Sorry @tarantulaz is more correct on that point in the present environment. People want to cash out their rewards and you can see this easily in the steady stream of coins flowing from authors to exchanges on the blockchain. Only if someone wants to buy in will the tokens be able to retain a value.
In a fantasy land where reward-earners are happy to stay within the system and enjoy their larger share of the Steem pie, buyers wouldn't be needed, but that won't happen for a long time, if ever.
@samupaha yes it is the same as Bitcoin, and Bitcoin can't survive without buyers either as long as miners and existing owners want to cash out. It isn't just a question of market cap going down, it flat out won't survive at all if no one want to buy it. Of course in practice the price finds an equilibrium. With few buyers spending little money that equilibrium ends up being low.
@jasonmcz the net cash outs have to be equal to the net buy ins (for every seller there is a buyer). It isn't that one being larger than the other makes the price go down, it is that the price moves to the point where the two become equal. In part this happens because some people have a fixed budget they are willing to invest. If someone is going to invest $1000 that absorbs a lot more STEEM at $1/STEEM than at $5/STEEM.
Like what @tarantulaz and @smooth are saying here, take a look at STEEM against other currency while is there a steady bleeding on the price? the answer is simple because of
authur_content_return > total_amount_outsider_buying_inand it will stay this way unfortunately if the user growth can't match up the content reward.It's the same thing with every inflationary currency. For example, if the market cap of Bitcoin stays the same, it means that price of bitcoin will go down because new coins are mined continuously.
New owners (miners) benefit while the value of coins owned by old holders will go down.
Of course the market cap will go down if people sell their cryptocurrency for fiat. But the same happens with Bitcoin, too, when miners have to sell their coins to pay their electricity bills and buy new hardware.
Compared to Bitcoin, Steem has advantage if the market place will come someday. It will create larger internal economy where people don't have so big need to exchange their SD to fiat currencies. Instead they can use them inside the Steem ecosystem.
I can't believe that you don't understand such a basic concept . So you survive because the fed is printing money. Even if a central bank was printing equivalent amounts for everyone and gave the money to them, nothing would really change. You can't create value.
So you would accept losing money constantly, because someone posted a good article. Not even based on what you think. Maybe BM thought someone wrote a good article, so he takes your money and distributes it to others.
AHAHAHAHAHAHA. What wealth? And with that redistribution, how will they make money if they don't sell their steem tokens? What gets me is that crypto people are so illiterate (financially), that it doesn't surprise me, how prone they are on getting scammed by people like Larimer.
I know you from the BitShares community. You moved scam and you expect to make money samupaha? Following the leader that created and then left Bitshares , expecting to make money as an early adopter this time. Nice!
@tarantulaz, wasn't that the idea behind the liquidity rewards? I know they removed liquidity rewards, but if they put it back into place , it wouldn't matter if new users stopped buying in because there would be people being rewarded for maintaining liquidity. Right?
The liquidity rewards are even scummier. They are taxing the rest of people, by giving money to the rest so that more people come and buy steem. Inflation and dilution, for something that doesn't actually fund development are techniques that bring people/money in and keep the scam going.
steemit will die without users.. your right so will facebook,reddit..ect.. the money is created from user activity, and it's working.. activite in the network/just like transactions solving is the new mining. Craigslist has over 200 million post a month worldwide.. if you add reputation to craigslist .. boom you have a perfect like steemit economy ready to be taken over and be disrupted.
I was with you @tarantulaz up until the 'greed' and 'prison' part. The distribution on the Steem platform is a problem, and it seems that all the most sensible arguments address this. I believe Charlie is also correct from a self-indulgent point of view, the developers do deserve something for their work. I think they need to find a way to bring more income to the platform, because otherwise the inequality not only disheartens new users, but it also removes the value of their investment very quickly. if you invested $1000 last month your upvote was worth $0.01, that same account will only have $0.004 now and that will be a massive redflag to many future investors if that trend continues.
Might be a bit of, but charlie wrote an article that won a lot of money, just because he was pro steem, saying how good a 'solo-mine/instamine/premine' is. We are talking about a Proof of Stake system and a social network, where someone with too much steem is effectively an administrator/moderator and the guy that is running the chain at the same time. If Charlie can't see that he is getting that money, from idiots that buy steem, because otherwise his tokens would have had no value, then I can't say anything else. Also don't forget that everyone else was complying or was trying to comply with regulation, something that charlie didn't do. Do you think that the rest were idiots that decided not to do what he did, in order to make money?
Well explained. Couldn't agree with you more. Its now clear that some WHALES have been powering down since the end of July at least. Something needs to be done with the distribution of our hard earned money that we invested in the platform. Frankly, I don't prefer that my money go to a mediocre post, that will eventially cash it out. The price of steem is plummeting as I am writing..
Yep, and it works untill nobody buys steem on the altcoin exchanges.
We're not talking about Bitshares, and past projects have no bearing on current or future projects. At least Dan is not hiding behind anonyimity, because if he did, that would be more worthy of scam accusations. He's laid out his life in public for everyone to see. Unfortunately when he makes a few mistakes, he gets roasted for it, as if he is not suppose to be human. I have yet to see people held at gunpoint to get involved in any of Dan's projects. We need to stop spoon feeding the public. If they get involved in something it is at their own risk and peril. Now can we get on with our lives, and stop wasting so much energy on this nonsense?
Want to know why Satoshi Nakamoto created Bitcoin under an alias?
Want to know why Satoshi Nakamoto abandoned Bitcoin to work on other projects?
It is because of this kind of roasting people do with Dan. It's idiotic and serves no purpose.
You discredit yourself and your arguments by calling Bitshares a scam, as it quite clearly never was a scam.
Did I (and most others) lose lots of money on Bitshares so far? Yes most certainly.
Did Bitshares live up to its potential so far? No.
Did Dan over promise and under-deliver? Probably.
Does that make it a scam? Definitely not..
Bitshares is still alive with lots of exciting developments, so there's still hope there.
Nobody thinks that a normal company should give most of their shares away to people who do nothing for it. That same principle should be applied to blockchains, too.
Because this is built on a blockchain, nothing can't be censored.
This is just bullshit. Bitshares 2.0 is perhaps the best DAO so far. The biggest problem with it has been too much low-quality shareholders who don't understand how it is supposed to work.
As we have seen with Steem, Dan can design very fine blockchain when he has a good team and no opposition from other shareholders (because he and his team has the majority of the shares).
Ah... pull back a bit on your underlying intent. It's showing.
Censor, censor