I do not see the project sustainable. The only source of income can not be the speculative purchase of tokens.
Other companies with similar operations have other sources of income such as advertising.
I do not see the project sustainable. The only source of income can not be the speculative purchase of tokens.
Other companies with similar operations have other sources of income such as advertising.
Sigh. The reward pool is fixed. How much a token is valued is determined by what people are willing to pay for said tokens, this price directly affects the dollar amount distributed daily and thus the value projected onto the articles. The market is young but has self corrective mechanisms built in to eventually reach reasonable pricing equilibrium. Bitcoin has an even larger emission schedule by dollar value each day and hardly has the same number of transactions per day as steem. Steem is much more geared towards being a currency than Bitcoin and yet I don't see you complaining about the "income of bitcoin being reliant on the speculative purchase of tokens".
Finally, steemit is a decentralised autonomous corporation, it's development is in the hands of its stakeholders. It is not the sole responsibility of steemit Inc to make progress on its own. This is the whole point of having an open source DAC.
I agree that it's not all about speculation. Besides just trying to earn curattion and author rewards, there are people posting who want to promote their own sites or businesses. In that sense, buying upvotes probably isn't much different than paying for visibility/ advertising anywhere.
I'm new, but I'm sure that newbies (newts like me?) who think quality content is enough are like webmasters who think that quality is all it takes to rank first in Google for competitive terms.
Here's the problem: Paying for upvotes ins't transparent. Playing for ads or promotion is. I don't have an issue with people paying for visibility, but I do have an issue with a lack of transparency.