You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: How to Fix Steemit Inequality
you have some interesting ideas here.
I do believe that you are barking up the wrong tree when you're shooting for 100,000 active users. The 80/20 rule tends to apply just about anywhere so a better objective is 20,000 active users. That also factors out the bots and multiple accounts that some hold.
Incentives / features which attract new people to stay around longer is good. Eventually though, users are going to have to face a reality. This may be a social media site that pays, but it is not a money tree that grows because you became a member. You have work at growing and accept that until you have, you'll not be making much.
Those who don't have the stomach for the longterm will have to move on.
Well even though the 80-20 rule could apply, I believe there is a direct correlation between the average amount people earn/ post and the number of active daily users, but it's just a guess, it needs scientific analysis.
But we are far from that, with about 1500 active authors, we are very far away from 20,000 active users, and even if we would have 100,000 active users, the rewards/ user would not
increase, it would actuallydecrease, because you would still have 50 top whales curating for 100,000 users instead of 1500, or you would have 50 whales curating for 1,000,000 users, what would be the reward then?I earn on average 0.379 SP/day after 2 months of work (and I do have quality articles posted). What would an average guy earn with 1,000,000 active users after 2 months of work in the future, 1 cent/day? Hahaha, now that is a real incentive.
So if the average incentive would be 1 cent/day, how will be Steemit different than Facebook? Paying 0$/ post vs paying 0.01$/post is hardly any difference :)
well that would be 1 cent more than you had :) ... that is something I've never seen addressed by the developers. As the site grows, will the pool of available rewards grow with it or will it just get more diluted?