Redistribution of influence. Where and why we as newbists matter – a lot!
The founders of Steemit, @ned and @dan, will wet their pants when they first hear a stranger saying, “I’ll Steemit to you.” I had to put their names in because they might, just might, like and upvote (yeuch – see below).
Everyone talks about Googling something. To "&&&&&-it" is a very strong marketing term. The guys are on the money here – but not everywhere. They are busy with only 24 hours in each day. This platform MUST be user-centric. If that is a foreign language, you should read “The inmates are running the Asylum”.
I read my morning Steemit report today and was very interested that I actually took note of what it communicated.
The article displays the top 100 earners on Steemit on a cumulative basis since inception. The number one accumulator in Steemit is Steemit itself.
This is an excerpt copied from @xiaohui’s article. Full article link below.
The top 100 members of the Steemit community control the influence which is exercisable within the platform to the tune of 83%. So, excluding Steemit, 99 people control the other 40%. Over 43% is sitting there and I do not know whether there is anything within the constitution of the company which provides limits and controls over this percentage.
In a corporate scenario such as a hostile take-over or a 19% purchase with a seat on the Board, this 43% becomes the point of interest. I do not know where Steemit is registered and so which corporate jurisdiction it is subject to. I suspect the 43% is designed as a defence mechanism against such a scenario. I hope it is!
At the moment, the company could be taken over by simply offering a carrot to the 99. The balance would be (in all likelihood) compulsorily sold if the buyer wanted to buy.
Shareholders, from their point of view, want the company to grow as quickly as possible. Of course, greater activity means greater enterprise value. If that 40% which is now controlled by 99 could be expanded into the control of, say, 10,000, the process gets tougher for an aggressive buyer and incrementally so thereafter. Of course, in social media, we are talking somewhat larger numbers.
Steemit is very young and something of an idealistic concept which needs to find its way in the choppy waters of the wake created by the likes of Google, Facebook, Pinterest, Instagram, Skype, Facetime, My Space, Twitter, etc.
It is all to do with stickability. If Steemit were sold tomorrow, a new platform could be founded. The disruption would be a bore but with only 6 months history, yeah, you go. With 5 years history it is really hard to switch. You are a part of the machine. You know the foibles but you put up with them. You almost grow to like them. Have you noticed how Facebook wants you to sign up for everything and anything with them? It is like they are an iTunes as well. Do you remember the fuss about moving your account and all your contacts?
So, two things are really important right now. Firstly, grow your Steemit base and Steem value as best you can. Secondly, don’t get used to the nagging little things. If you do, the DNA of the platform will never recover and you will be reducing value. This is one of the reasons I am forever quibbling at the following:
Formatting
Language: upvoting, curating, powering up, steeming, resteeming, witnessing, blah, blah,. The most valuable time for the management to listen to a Steemit user is in their first three weeks for this very reason.
What are these topics about?
Why can I not message a Steemer? If I cannot I shall go to another platform where I can.
Have you noticed how every site now has Voice Over Internet Protocol, I dislike jargon – telephone functionality.
The reason is that they do not want to risk anyone going elsewhere … and then staying there. Skype this evening? Don’t worry, you can do that just as easily here! Keep playing Candy Crush whilst you talk to your aunt or whomever. Such things get called metrics. They will measure almost how many times you hit a key on your keyboard and then set about how to get you to do more. Here is how value is metered.
So, Steemit needs VOIP – I want a Steemphone and I want it now - and a personal messaging functionality because there will be pay-for-post elsewhere in a very short time.
Don’t worry about the big guys, (@ned and @dan – had to throw in another instance of recognition); your pestering makes them very much richer! I am sure they deserve it (like the brown-nosing?) and they should be working their butts off right now. This is max out the value time.
There are roughly 110,000 registered accounts on Steemit, as I understand. To know the extent of activity amongst those 110,000 is something not even Steemit could say with any degree of accuracy. It would be meaningless.
Our job, as the minnows who are going to become whales is to be early adopters and pester the tech team when things don’t work. Yes, it is beta, but look at the account balance, make it better not beta! I liked that too!
Finally a cheeky aside to @xiaohui – Orcas are dolphins, not whales! The term killer whale was a silly screw-up. They meant to say whale killers!
My understanding is that Steemit is a closely held corporation. (I could be wrong). But if I'm right and all the voting stock is closely held, how can there be a hostile take over?
Your understanding is my hope - that the 43% is a strategic block, so we are agreed. If the 43% is not ring-fenced and a 19% purchase was made ... in some way, then the constitution of the company would be put under severe stress. I was slightly playing devil's advocate because I have seen these scenarios before. It has to be a belt and braces scenario whereby dilution in whatever guise cannot imperil the vested interests of the smallholdings of minnows and even dolphins or whatever tags they have!
The other critical word in your post is 'voting'. There could be class 'A' and class 'B' shares which have different rights. I simply do not know but the way this all pans out needs scrutiny.
right...I don't know the buzz words.
however...I've read some posts on the subject.
my understanding is that vests are comparable to common stock
Vesting is when you hand your voting right on a share to another person so it may well be that some stockholders have vested their voting rights with one or more of the Board members. That would make sense. In vesting, you still own the share(s), just for the sake of completeness of explanation!
I don't think that's Steem's definition of vesting.
Which adds to my ongoing vitriol against the stupid language of Steemit. Who on earth came up with this detritus?
(6 nest...which I hate)perhaps they're breaking new ground and don't have an appropriate terminology yet??