Two weeks seems very limited for active users. Most platforms use ‘active within 30 days’ (Facebook and Twitter for example), several even use ‘active within 90 days’ to determine what is an active user.

Also this calculation forgets about won back users.

David Pakman, VC at Venrock and then some, has a good article on churn here.

I think it is normal that Steemit has a higher churn rate because currently the platform still promises lots but doesn’t tell people how hard it is to actually earn.

What would be interesting to see would be (monthly) rate churn based on account age. Where possible younger than one month, 1-3 months, 3-6 months, 6-9 months, 9-12 months, 1-2 years,+2 years old accounts. This would allow initiatives suc as @curie, @ocd, @cervantes, and others to device new strategies to improve user retention and thus lower churn.

Addendum: while retention on Steem can definitely be improved, and should IMHO, I don’t think looking at churn at this stage of the platform matters much.

Steem is merely two years old, all platforms still sport Beta. User acquisition and active user growth matters most. Improving the sign up process is still of a higher priority than the raw churn rate.

Churn rate baaed account age, reputation, and amount of posts/comments is a very interesting analysis though as it will facilitate improving retention.

Pure churn rate for a still beta platform without subscription model and never IPO’ed? Rather irrelevant right now.

Active users is still the most important metric but yes, both numbers go hand in hand. :)