If we want to encourage serious businesses to enter STEEM, then we need to forget about providing all services for ... pennies. That's simple as that. Steemit need to decide: do they want to make build business or do they want to give something average to average mass consumer and earn average revenue.
I agree, it should cost far more than three STEEM, which is 40 cents. 1000 STEEM seems reasonable, until the token value rises. Nobody will want to start a community for $5000, then the value drops, and the next member starts a community for $2500. I'm thinking the cost should be set in US dollars so the cost stays the same. Make it far more expensive than 40 cents, indeed, but a reasonable and consistent cost as well.
Why? How does that benefit anyone? You're adding another barrier to entry on a platform already dominated by whales. Most of the world is dirt poor too and this is all being compared to and priced in USD. It makes 0 sense. The price should be 100% determined on the cost to the network and that's it.
And as far as I know, the name squatting thing isn't even an issue based on how the system runs. So, that point shouldn't even be considered in the argument.
We'll have to find the happy middle ground. Making it too expensive is just as unwise as making it too cheap. A set cost is important. Someone could set up thousands of accounts for 3 steem each, at 40 cents, then sell those accounts for less than the cost of the three steem accounts in the future if the value increases, undercutting the source, and making a huge profit. Not good, especially if that source is designed to be beneficial to the economy as a whole.
A community should be able to gather enough resources to pay for their community, if they're poor. It doesn't have to be too expensive or overly expensive to the point only the wealthy can do it.
Who cares if they sell accounts for more in the future? That's what happens when you're the first to adopt a technology. You benefit from that.
But, again it seems like you're assuming these accounts have names which they will not. The accounts are numbers. The name squatting is not an issue. So, the only way I could see your argument actually taking place is if people were selling communities that they built up. Otherwise, it would only be worth the cost of creating one.
I'm not assuming the accounts have names. On the contrary. The accounts don't have names, so therefore, unless I'm mistaken, someone could purchase many accounts and sell those accounts for cheaper than the cost from the source, and the one purchasing could then name it and carry on much like they could if they purchased from the source.
"Who cares!" Obviously you care.
Think:
You don't want this to be dominated by whales
A whale comes and purchases many accounts.
That whale sells accounts, undercutting the source
The whale makes all the money
No more STEEM is getting burned to create accounts.
Because those wishing to create a community can simply purchase an account from the whale who's undercutting the source.
The whale makes all the money.
Steem and the community as whole does not benefit from the creation of communities, the one selling accounts is the only one making a personal profit.
Maybe I'm missing something? Maybe this problem has already been addressed? I still think a set cost would be beneficial, so one could not set up a community today for 40 cents, and someone down the road must spend $15 because the value of Steem spiked. The only way the source could be undercut is if the cost isn't set and consistent. The value of Steem fluctuates, therefore, someone could undercut the source, unless the cost of a community account remains the same, regardless of the value of the token.
I'm not assuming the accounts have names. On the contrary. The accounts don't have names, so therefore, unless I'm mistaken, someone could purchase many accounts and sell those accounts for cheaper than the cost from the source, and the one purchasing could then name it and carry on much like they could if they purchased from the source.
If they purchase the accounts and sell them cheaper, they're losing money.
Why would someone buy a bunch of accounts and sell them cheaper? That makes no sense at all. They're losing money to accomplish what exactly? Unless you mean they buy the accounts, then hold them and hope the value increases, then sell them cheaper and make a profit. I mean, I guess that's a risk/reward thing. But, a set cost could fix that easily.
Also, I agree with a set cost given the current volatility of crypto. But, I think the set cost should be based on whatever it costs the network to create the community. Maybe plus a couple percent to throw into the DAO too. Raising the cost just for the sake of raising it as the OP suggests is just plain stupid though.
"Who cares!" Obviously you care.
Also, my "who cares" was in response to people buying a lot of communities. They still need RC and thus Steem to run them, so it would benefit us all in the end.
If they purchase the accounts and sell them cheaper, they're losing money.
If I purchase 1000 accounts today at three steem each, that'll cost about $400. If the value of Steem rises, it still costs 3 STEEM to create a community account, but I could sell accounts for 2 Steem, and make a profit, because 2 STEEM then is worth more than the 3 STEEM were worth when the account was purchased. If steem was worth $5 each, $15 would be needed in order to create a community account, but I could sell accounts for $10. I could sell 40 of my 1000 accounts for $400, and still have 960 accounts to sell.
Do you see now how you're missing the point and just yelling at the clouds?
"But a set cost would fix that." Yes! And that's all I'm saying! LOL! Damn.
Do you see now how you're missing the point and just yelling at the clouds?
"But a set cost would fix that." Yes! And that's all I'm saying! LOL! Damn.
No I wasnt.
Make it far more expensive than 40 cents, indeed, but a reasonable and consistent cost as well.
Thats what you originally said. Make it far more expensive than 40 cents. Raising the cost on the basis of nothing. If it only costs the network 40 cents to create a community, then keep it at 40 cents and I highly doubt it's much more than that. Probably less than 40 cents tbh.
You also need to realize that having people create a ton of communities benefits Steem holders. They need to hold Steem to utilize them. Raising the cost will ultimately affect the potential value of Steem.
You have to consider competition as well. Why come here and pay to create these communities when they can do it on Reddit or elsewhere for free? Sure, you can make a little money. But, it's not easy and the money made by most people on here isn't enough to keep them here. Just look at the amount of active users here. Not very many.
A community should be able to gather enough resources to pay for their community, if they're poor. It doesn't have to be too expensive or overly expensive to the point only the wealthy can do it.
Yes, they need Steem which gives them RC credits. That's how the communities are able to run. This all ties back to communities needing to hold Steem. Thus increasing the value of Steem. So having a higher barrier of entry to just creating the community is a terrible idea and will hurt us all at the end of the day.
Btw, sorry for all the replies. I'm on my phone and it was easier to sort out my thoughts this way lol.
Too many replies, and we're going all over the place. I'm saying if there's a cost (there is) it should be a set to one dollar value and remain consistent.
You can have your opinions about the place and everything else but that doesn't change the reality of the situation.
I agree that 3 Steem creation fee is too low in general. I would rather like to see a requirement to hold Steempower in the main Community account in order to stay active. The amount of Steempower to be hold in the main account depends on the size of the community. Lets say per 1000 users maybe 100 Steempower for example.
Instead of forcing people to pay a certain price for creating a community I would rather like to see requirements for the certain size of each community.
No, it shouldn't.
Hi @yabapmatt
I agree with you.
If we want to encourage serious businesses to enter STEEM, then we need to forget about providing all services for ... pennies. That's simple as that. Steemit need to decide: do they want to make build business or do they want to give something average to average mass consumer and earn average revenue.
more domination for the whales. wooo.
I agree, it should cost far more than three STEEM, which is 40 cents. 1000 STEEM seems reasonable, until the token value rises. Nobody will want to start a community for $5000, then the value drops, and the next member starts a community for $2500. I'm thinking the cost should be set in US dollars so the cost stays the same. Make it far more expensive than 40 cents, indeed, but a reasonable and consistent cost as well.
Why? How does that benefit anyone? You're adding another barrier to entry on a platform already dominated by whales. Most of the world is dirt poor too and this is all being compared to and priced in USD. It makes 0 sense. The price should be 100% determined on the cost to the network and that's it.
And as far as I know, the name squatting thing isn't even an issue based on how the system runs. So, that point shouldn't even be considered in the argument.
We'll have to find the happy middle ground. Making it too expensive is just as unwise as making it too cheap. A set cost is important. Someone could set up thousands of accounts for 3 steem each, at 40 cents, then sell those accounts for less than the cost of the three steem accounts in the future if the value increases, undercutting the source, and making a huge profit. Not good, especially if that source is designed to be beneficial to the economy as a whole.
A community should be able to gather enough resources to pay for their community, if they're poor. It doesn't have to be too expensive or overly expensive to the point only the wealthy can do it.
Who cares if they sell accounts for more in the future? That's what happens when you're the first to adopt a technology. You benefit from that.
But, again it seems like you're assuming these accounts have names which they will not. The accounts are numbers. The name squatting is not an issue. So, the only way I could see your argument actually taking place is if people were selling communities that they built up. Otherwise, it would only be worth the cost of creating one.
I'm not assuming the accounts have names. On the contrary. The accounts don't have names, so therefore, unless I'm mistaken, someone could purchase many accounts and sell those accounts for cheaper than the cost from the source, and the one purchasing could then name it and carry on much like they could if they purchased from the source.
"Who cares!" Obviously you care.
Think:
Maybe I'm missing something? Maybe this problem has already been addressed? I still think a set cost would be beneficial, so one could not set up a community today for 40 cents, and someone down the road must spend $15 because the value of Steem spiked. The only way the source could be undercut is if the cost isn't set and consistent. The value of Steem fluctuates, therefore, someone could undercut the source, unless the cost of a community account remains the same, regardless of the value of the token.
If they purchase the accounts and sell them cheaper, they're losing money.
Why would someone buy a bunch of accounts and sell them cheaper? That makes no sense at all. They're losing money to accomplish what exactly? Unless you mean they buy the accounts, then hold them and hope the value increases, then sell them cheaper and make a profit. I mean, I guess that's a risk/reward thing. But, a set cost could fix that easily.
Also, I agree with a set cost given the current volatility of crypto. But, I think the set cost should be based on whatever it costs the network to create the community. Maybe plus a couple percent to throw into the DAO too. Raising the cost just for the sake of raising it as the OP suggests is just plain stupid though.
Also, my "who cares" was in response to people buying a lot of communities. They still need RC and thus Steem to run them, so it would benefit us all in the end.
If I purchase 1000 accounts today at three steem each, that'll cost about $400. If the value of Steem rises, it still costs 3 STEEM to create a community account, but I could sell accounts for 2 Steem, and make a profit, because 2 STEEM then is worth more than the 3 STEEM were worth when the account was purchased. If steem was worth $5 each, $15 would be needed in order to create a community account, but I could sell accounts for $10. I could sell 40 of my 1000 accounts for $400, and still have 960 accounts to sell.
Do you see now how you're missing the point and just yelling at the clouds?
"But a set cost would fix that." Yes! And that's all I'm saying! LOL! Damn.
No I wasnt.
Thats what you originally said. Make it far more expensive than 40 cents. Raising the cost on the basis of nothing. If it only costs the network 40 cents to create a community, then keep it at 40 cents and I highly doubt it's much more than that. Probably less than 40 cents tbh.
You also need to realize that having people create a ton of communities benefits Steem holders. They need to hold Steem to utilize them. Raising the cost will ultimately affect the potential value of Steem.
You have to consider competition as well. Why come here and pay to create these communities when they can do it on Reddit or elsewhere for free? Sure, you can make a little money. But, it's not easy and the money made by most people on here isn't enough to keep them here. Just look at the amount of active users here. Not very many.
Yes, they need Steem which gives them RC credits. That's how the communities are able to run. This all ties back to communities needing to hold Steem. Thus increasing the value of Steem. So having a higher barrier of entry to just creating the community is a terrible idea and will hurt us all at the end of the day.
Btw, sorry for all the replies. I'm on my phone and it was easier to sort out my thoughts this way lol.
Too many replies, and we're going all over the place. I'm saying if there's a cost (there is) it should be a set to one dollar value and remain consistent.
You can have your opinions about the place and everything else but that doesn't change the reality of the situation.
No, it should be free!
I agree that 3 Steem creation fee is too low in general. I would rather like to see a requirement to hold Steempower in the main Community account in order to stay active. The amount of Steempower to be hold in the main account depends on the size of the community. Lets say per 1000 users maybe 100 Steempower for example.
Instead of forcing people to pay a certain price for creating a community I would rather like to see requirements for the certain size of each community.