You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: "Voice" (MEOS) Announcement ... Much Ado About Nothing
Well I was gone for 2 weeks when the news dropped. I have not signed up yet, but I will. I have not given up on EOS or Voice yet. I am still up on my coins :) and sounds like there will be money made on Voice.
https://thecryptoreport.com/block-one-ceo-expects-50-100-million-payday-for-top-influencers-on-eos-voice/
@old-guy-photos,
I read the article you attached. Again, no mention as to HOW anyone would make money under the current arrangement. As I mentioned in my article, Larimer ended his speech with a nebulous reference about Voice Tokens being able to do other things, other than juicing your comments on other people's posts, in the future. Well, that doesn't mean squat.
This was/is a ridiculous marketing strategy. A HUGE amount of attention was focused on EOS and that attention could have been used to great effect to instantly elevate Voice ... had there been a real product to elevate. How does Voice help the army of content creators who are desperately awaiting a crypto-based social media platform ... that compensates creators based upon the quality of their content?
It's as if all these Crypto Devs, including many on Steemit, are trying to undo the expectation of content creators making money (unless you're Taylor Swift and then, presumably, getting a piece of ad revenue ) ... so that they can keep it all for themselves.
Quill
Apparently from the recent interviews with Dan, the tokens can not be bought by the creators, they have to be earned. Then they can be sold to advertisers that want to voice their product or idea. Agreed it could have been done better as far as the timing. It is always like the announcement of the announcement lol.
@old-guy-photos,
Hey Ol' Guy.
I've spent hours and hours scrolling through post-launch Telegram posts [including those by Brendan Blumer (CEO) and Dan Larimer (CTO)], videos and interviews. Clearly, there IS an intent to make Voice Tokens "saleable" in exchange for fiat/other cryptos (saleable to advertisers and, perhaps, others as well). What seems to be the hang-up (I'm connecting the dots) is regulatory approval in the US.
B1 has hired Holland & Knight is Washington as "Lobbyists" and this is telling (H&K was my law firm when I managed hedge funds ... they are a Top Drawer securities law firm). Obviously, they're not "lobbyists" as that terms is normally understood. My guess is that they've been retained to work with the SEC to hammer out a "compliant model" (for, I'm guessing, trading Voice Tokens on an EOS "internal exchange").
This is actually a VERY GOOD development ... they're doing it right even if it's a pain in the ass (and, I promise you, very expensive).
So ... why announce Voice on June 1 instead of waiting for the details to be worked out? My guess is that they announced their BIG JUNE 1 ANNOUNCEMENT ... and then got blind-sided by some of the recent SEC crackdowns. I've been arguing for 18 months that these crypto smarty-pantses (including on STEEM/Steemit) were going to get their asses handed to them (gonna "Stick it to the Man") ... and now it's happening. Pucker up cryptoworld ... you're going to kiss The Man's ass and play by the rules (just like everyone else has to) ... or it will be off to jail/bankruptcy court (or both) in defiance. Wait and see.
That said, a great deal of this could have, and should have, been explained on June 1. Instead, they remained silent and looked like fools in the process. Hopefully one of the lessons they learn from this experience is one I learned many decades ago: Keep your mouth shut until you can deliver ... and then over-deliver.
In any event, I've signed up for Beta and will start posting the first day I can.
Quill
Yes, very good! There is a lot to learn behind the scenes it seems. Very likely the EOS folks caught wind of the SEC suit against KIK for $100 mill and figured they best dot all the i's and cross all the t's lol!!!
https://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2019/comp-pr2019-87.pdf
Yes I saw where Brendan Blumer said that they want to bring over influencers. Basically if a guy has 100 mil subs and could bring over 50 mil, he would likely make 50 million bucks... Maybe a referral type of thing, not sure, but clearly there is an intent for there to be monetization of sorts. IOW too soon to call it dead on arrival IMO.
@old-guy-photos,
Absolutely right. Indeed, it would appear as if Voice has solved ALL the major systemic problems plaguing Steemit:
Multiple-Account-Self-Upvoting ... they've elminated the ability to have multliple accounts.
Bidbots. There appears to be no way to delegate votes and hence destroying bidbots on the back-end.
Curation. They've created a "Curation System" that is damnably innovative, if not ingenious. If you think about it for a couple of hours (minutes ARE NOT enough as there are many feedback loops created), you begin to realize that the forces elevating "Quality Content" will be quite substantial ... and self re-enforcing.
Abusive DownVoting.The "whales" will be, effectively, real-world advertisers who will have ZERO interest in engaging in stupid flagging wars lest they alienate potential customers.
There are only two potential Achilles Heels that I can identify at the moment (with, admittedly, incomplete information):
1.) The Voice Token HAS to be liquid or none of this works. And for it to be liquid, it will require specific approval from the SEC. While this is likely sooner or later, waiting around on governments can be patience-testing. Personally, I think they should have delayed the Announcement until they had secured approval. Too late.
.
2.) The entire edifice is EXTREMELY reliant upon securing a critical mass of users ... QUICKLY. And hence, their plan to simply "buy an audience" by soliciting Big Influencers from other social media platforms. I have some extreme doubts, however, whether a 50% sign-up rate of Big Influencers' followers (as theoretically posited by Blumer) is even close to realistic. A LOT of those Twitter followers are followers in "name only.' If you look at the people I follow on Twitter, for example, they include a litany of high-profile people who would exercise ZERO influence over my decisions about anything. I followed them for a number of reasons including because they followed me. Others, because they were fellow poets or authors, almost none of whom I have any interaction. The same phenomenon occurs on Steemit ... what percentage of your followers actually follow you? 5% at the most (probably less)? How many of those do you have enough interaction with to reasonably expect to be able to exert an influential role? For me, such number would be in the dozens.
Quill