Let's not kid ourselves. Steem is run like a Banana Republic. You got investors playing games with speculation. You have a trending page designed to make it appear like everyone is making $200 average per post. Let's look at a snipped of the created page after 30 minutes.
0
0
0
0
Oh look, someone acquired 0.08 SBD.
You say you are fine with income inequality? Well guess what, the store greeters get paid like kings in comparison to the board members at Walmart. Their income inequality is much lower.
If the average person on the trending page is earning over $200 per post, while many people are earning 1 or 2 cents, we got a problem. We don't have enough money coming into the system, so they got to fool everybody, by a misleading trending page, in order to attract investors.
You divide $200 by 2 cents, and you get. 10000. Are you fine with a 10000 to 1 income inequality ratio? We got to even the playing field a little bit more.
These dumbass whales don't realize, that when the minnows are feed, their support will trickle up to make them even more money.
Steem needs to be run like an economy on disposable income and not a banana Republic. Once you get corporate adds in here, and a proper market place, we can have an economy based upon disposable income.
Maybe we can redesign the rewards pool, to incentive's those who spend time reading the minnows post.
I think the curation rewards should increase, for those who comment on posts with from members of a lower Steem power. Lets have a progressive curation system.
@TimCliff says the rewards pool is flawed. I agree with him. I say we redesign the rewards pool, and then increase the rewards pool through advertising. That will give Steem an economic model, based upon disposable income.
Pragmatic income inequality is good. It motivates members to compete and produce amazing content, but we have to reduce the extreme income inequality on here.
If we change our model, will get our membership up to 10 million, and will start getting large corporate sponsors running ads to funding the rewards pool, and perhaps funding premium members who produce great content. But we should have a consensus to approve premium members, so we don't have bot abuse to take money from advertisers.
Once we get the corporate sponsors, lets create a special marketplace so they can sell their products on here. Many companies would love to run focus groups on Social media. This could be their platform.
So we have great ideas, but whos going to do the work?
If the programming is too much of a headache for 99%, then lets pass the information on to the top 1% who are talented enough to pull if off. Lets get Steem Inc recruit the best and the brightness talent from the Steem community.
Let's start funding programming contest, to find the hidden talent on here. Give all these employees a shitload of Steem, and explain to them, that if they pull this off, they are going to become rich.
Powerful. Understand, I'm still a relative noob, to me it has that appearance.
The thing is, a lot of the time people making 200$ had to put in 150-200$ even to get that... Under the speculation that they would gain a profit by the week. That doesn't work on a downward trend.
The biggest part of that inequality is how much weighting steem power creates.
The only purpose voting has at this stage is the gamble that you got something at the right time and was about to get 1000$ in votes 2 minutes later... They call it DUST. lmao...
Anyway, I agree in about every sense... What I intended was, I don't care if someone has 2000 people reading their content and overall get regular readers getting a larger slice than something I post that might get noticed by a small handful of people scrolling on the new posts page.
It is ridiculous that the main motivation is to get enough SP to where a vote counts for more than 0. Then to get enough steem to pay for bots to up vote stuff. People literally put money in JUST TO SELL VOTES.
The other problem is the weekly payout. That's kinda like telling authors that "your book gets its first payout and then it's our advertising to get more people writing books". At best it's designed to generate a flow of mediocre content like a tabloid magazine.
If the motivation is to produce good content, then the payouts should reflect the blogs / videos / articles that garner legitimate interest over time.
Ex: make an article, the first week 5 people see and comment... Then it turns out that it's useful, and 6 months later that article hits trending numbers naturally. You have to hope that everyone subscribe to your new stuff...
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
You have some good ideas. Write up an ad proposal, and lets expand this debate, so other members can give their ideas.
Talk about the forms of advertising you would support, and talk about the potential abuse we got to stay clear from. Take some time, and write something formal.
Personally, I think the blogging economy has very little value, unless it's backed by advertising or an market.
Investors can only do so much. What other ways can we generate revenue, and how can we attract large corporate sponsors?
I also think Steem Inc, needs to get out of their bubble, and partner with, or take advice from other companies, especially large advertising firms.
If nobody is willing to spearhead progress, than they need to reach out to former google employees, or experts from top notch firms, and have them mentor them.
Maybe ask a collage professor to have his students do a focus study. It's free consulting. They wouldn't have to pay them.
Steemit has alot delegation power. Why aren't they hosting 1000, and 10000 SBD contest, to get the best and brightest business minds, and programmers on board?
Check out Alibaba. This is where social media can meet the marketplace. I have buttered up small factories in China, to get architectural LED lights. I would get stuff that would retail for $1000, and negotiate it down to $80.
Those Chinese love to Sell! and will keep a conversation going for an hour, just to explain how their factory works.
I would get them to do custom modifications for me. They will create custom molds for me. Whatever I want.
Imagine merging social media, with product development. I just thought of an idea right now. Companies could use Steem power delegation, to run focus groups.
Social media meets product development, and users get Steem rewards or high powered upvotes. No more paying $300 an hour consultants. Spend $300 on one weeks delegation, and get the Steem community to provide feedback on upcoming products.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Powerful. Understand, I'm still a relative noob, to me it has that appearance.
The thing is, a lot of the time people making 200$ had to put in 150-200$ even to get that... Under the speculation that they would gain a profit by the week. That doesn't work on a downward trend.
The biggest part of that inequality is how much weighting steem power creates.
The only purpose voting has at this stage is the gamble that you got something at the right time and was about to get 1000$ in votes 2 minutes later... They call it DUST. lmao...
Anyway, I agree in about every sense... What I intended was, I don't care if someone has 2000 people reading their content and overall get regular readers getting a larger slice than something I post that might get noticed by a small handful of people scrolling on the new posts page.
It is ridiculous that the main motivation is to get enough SP to where a vote counts for more than 0. Then to get enough steem to pay for bots to up vote stuff. People literally put money in JUST TO SELL VOTES.
The other problem is the weekly payout. That's kinda like telling authors that "your book gets its first payout and then it's our advertising to get more people writing books". At best it's designed to generate a flow of mediocre content like a tabloid magazine.
If the motivation is to produce good content, then the payouts should reflect the blogs / videos / articles that garner legitimate interest over time.
Ex: make an article, the first week 5 people see and comment... Then it turns out that it's useful, and 6 months later that article hits trending numbers naturally. You have to hope that everyone subscribe to your new stuff...
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit