You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Is Steemit bound to stagnate and stifle its own user adoption?
More users = more demand for Steem. More demand for Steem = higher Steem prices. Higher Steem prices = higher payouts.
So it's not true that more users means the pie gets divided into smaller slices. The pie grows as users grow.
The reverse is also true.
Given this, there should no limit on the number of users that can be supported and fairly compensated.
How does "More users = more demand for Steem"? How is it that "the pie grows as users grow"? Doesn't that require influx of investment capital?
New users want to have influence here. They want a voice. They want their voice to be as loud, or louder, than many other folks here. They also want curation awards.
To have influence, and to earn decent curation awards, they must have Steem Power. To get Steem Power, they must get Steem. To get Steem, they must buy it or earn it. Buying it is often easier and faster than earning it. So, many will buy. I did, and I know a great many others who have also.
So, many people will buy it so that they can have influence.
And, it doesn't take a lot of people buying to have a huge influence on price. The liquid supply of Steem is very limited. 97% of Steem is currently tied up in Steem Power, so only 3% is available to be readily bought/sold.
Then we agree after all that it requires influx capital, we only disagree to the extent it will happen. Yes I know users are definitely incentivized to invest. But damned if they do, damned if they don't. The discussion of this aspect will require a follow-up blog post.
I don't think of it, as you do, in terms of "investment capital". I think of it simply as "demand for Steem", with that demand being driven mostly by a desire to be influential rather than a desire to earn a return. People want Steem Power, and will buy it, for the same reason that people want and buy tokens or "powers" in video games.