So this started as a reply to @aggroed post about @freedom:
I started getting pretty in-depth so I figured it should have it's own post. Kinda lengthy but if you like steemit it's a must read
As one of the minnows in the MSP whose been really starting to commit to steemit, looking to buy the dips and start allocating a lot more resources to steemit, this definitely worries me and it's part of the reason I didnt stay on steemit a year ago when i found it.
A hostile takeover or complete crash of steemit price is entirely possible in my mind
To me the fact is that facebook, google, the gov, the banks - all of these actors easily have the resources and competence to see the power of crypto and to monitor releases. Expending very small initial resources to hold a large stake late game.
I've spent a lot of my past week reading and learning about the all the people that make up steemit.
There are a lot of people that believe in it enough to set it up as their primary income, if @freedom decides he's done with steemit and crashes price, a lot of Steemerians would have no choice but to start liquidating.
Who knows where the bottom would be?
Maybe he creates or finds another social media he could have a bigger stake in? Maybe they just want to crash steemit and hurt a lot of people to make an example?
Even the fact that I consider not posting this for fear of potential repercussion down the road shows that steemit is still way too centralized
Kinda like too many presidents and not enough congress and courts to balance power
Imagine if some of @freedom SP was split up and delegated between the top 1000 contributors to steemit, how much faster distribution would go.
I do see that would cause a large influx or of liquid steem but what if it was only delegated to vote for 100% power up posts, and now that whales have gotten money out, we set it at a 6 month power down cycle?
You can see how much interest there was in @ausbitbank post and he was only delegating 1000sp - a drop to these accounts
The honest fact is that in the end no one wants a mark zuckerberg or a 3% account holder or even .05% and 1% account holders when eventually there will come an even more distributed & fair social network. So without wider distribution in my mind steemit will die eventually.
It kind of becomes a house of cards situation the longer the power is centralized and contributors aware and willing to move to another social network if it's clearly better, the closer you are unnoctiably getting to an immediate flip
Just brainstorming a quick theorectial - what if someone created a replica steemit and copied everything
Except they cut out the very top whales balances and then offered any top content curator 5-10x their SP to merge over and flag and close their steemit.
It would cost some money but that amount drops with every content creator that switches.
Once you had enough commited their would be a tipping effect where everyone would leave.
Just incase Dan or Ned or another whale reads this and starts getting anxiety, I'm not doing this, but someone could be.
And i bet there will be atleast a few private messages checking to make sure :P
There are so many good new contributors that get no support I could point out 10 people that I could see easily leaving the platform because they get no support and there are so many shit posts comparatively that make alot
Even the fact that lets say someone made an introductory post and made $20, it would take 600,000 new steem content creators to have to same network effect as this ONE actor
In reality if you took that one rich account and put it vs even 10,000 awesome content creators that had $20 and they each started a new steemit the 10,000 would win everytime
In reality any proven good content creator should be getting $100 or 200 just to start on the platform, that is One day of work for a lot of americans
Instead internet celebs get thousands and randoms get $10 or $20, there should be more balance
Steemit has enough resources that there could literally be an introductory committee that monitors every post, verifies, and moves stronger creators on to get more initial SP or so many better processes that could be added on to the few "submit your fave content creator to be featured" posts that the community tries to run but doesn't have enough to do more then 5 or so people a post with so much locked away for the whales
For instance YouTube Facebook Twitter could all be linked and an initial SP could automatically be derived from the follower numbers and activity across all social media
People seek fairness, decentralization and above all good content. In the end that's what will win
It seems like so many of these crypto currency projects are runnung into this problem they start with Nobel goals of decentralisation but once you're there with all that power it's hard to let go...
Then it becomes a question of how long it stays relevant 5 years? 10?
Facebook is clearly on its way out.
Because something more fair came along. But they will keep coming until eventually you have THE network that really evolves with the people.
I'm hope I'm explaining it well enough, basically
Ideas create money, money doesn't create ideas
And I'll tell you right now that in the time i was away I've already envisioned a network that WILL eventually come along in some form and beat steemit, I was starting to think it could be built on top of steemit. But where steemit is at now, it literally can't.
I apologize if I ruffled any feathers but the fact is I wouldn't be telling you if i didnt see the value in steemit and want it to be around as long as it can.