On Friday, a diehard Bitcoiner by the name of "AceofWallStreet" published a post on Medium called "The Ugly Truth About Steemit."
I haven't seen much talk about it on the platform but think its worth a discussion. It's a bit of an emotional rant, but underlying the emotion is valid criticism:
1.) The Steemit launch was not completely open and transparent and favored the insiders in the project.
2.) The top 247 accounts on Steemit own ~87.40% of the stake.
I strongly believe these are the major 2 failure points for Steemit and hope that the core team is working on addressing these issues. #1 still seems to be a problem that's not being addressed, as @dantheman continues to make quick changes in a way that's not completely transparent to all insiders. This needs to change.
Regarding #2, I don't think this is a long-term problem as long as the top 247 don't abuse their power. With power comes responsibility and if the stakeholders are smart and thoughful about rewarding content creatos, I'm not as concerned about this issue.
What do you think about the criticim's raised in "The Ugly Truth Behind Steemit"?
I can understand your frustrations - certain people have earned disproportionately on the platform. Others have been unfairly unrewarded.
However, if you look at the people who've earned the most, they've contributed the most. They've brought across big audiences (=thousands of new signups). They're also very influential (those who were big in the early days of Bitcoin, can be very influential at bringing others here). Or they've coded the platform. Or they've created tools / new advertising / new marketing for Steemit. Certain writers earn a lot because they have produced high quality content with mass appeal (easy to read + lots of pictures + interesting stories). Other writers like @stellabelle have been very prolific in their writing and outreach to the community here. So all in all - the majority of those whales have earned their place and power. There are a few exceptions of course but there'll always be flaws in the system.
If you want to join them, think about what you can offer that can
Just a few thoughts...
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Thanks for the thoughts!
Disproportionate earnings is actually not a big frustration of mine. I think for the most part people are being rewarded fairly and while there are some minnows that get overlooked, I think this will change over time.
The more concerning thing to me is when changes are made without full transparency (e.g. the payout being changed from 24 hrs to 12 hrs back to 24 hrs). There needs to be more transparency for all users when it comes to changes made in the protocol.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Up voted...because I find your post funny.
To the point - It is the truth! Dan and co rewarded 85% of the currency they created to themselves in a 'shady' open mining...
So I am waiting to hear how the only point left for discussion - is that true truth ugly? And to tell me how this true fact is beautiful? How it inspires you and what makes you happy with it?
????
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
the truth may set you free!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I am not a smart fellow, but if I was risking so much time and energy in monetizing some kind of project, I damn sure would come up with some sort of backup or reserve for future unseen events\problems. Kinda like backing your currency with gold or silver. Not saying that is the case, just saying I could see the wisdom.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I see another major problem - good content is lost in the sea of other comments. People doing research and giving a lot of time to share useful information sometimes don't get even 1$ but billionaire businessman introducing himself with only line "I'm on Steemit" gets 10 000$. Do we really want Steemit to be oligarchic? How to fix it? How to get some balance in such matters?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
It's a tough one. You could make the argument that big names joining are worth much more than unknown people writing great articles because they're attracting their big followings outside Steemit onto Steemit. At this stage, the platform needs growth and the unknown authors (even if they are talented) aren't solving the growth problem.
At some point, once you have critical mass the talent will need to be rewarded though. And you do run the risk of losing the great authors if it doesn't happen relatively soon.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I agree with you that big names are good for Steemit but probably we should wait for results or their brilliant posts instead of giving blind votes just for their name.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Fair distribution is always a concern in the crypto world. I think one aspect of Steem that is vastly different than most competing currencies is the fact that you don't need to invest your own money to obtain steem, steem dollars, or steem power. Also, because of the high dilution rate, the % of vests that the top account holders currently have has been decreasing recently and should continue to do so.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Yes, not requiring upfront investment to get involved is hugely important and I'm sure that there will be a crypto token that is massively successful in the future. I'm not sure it will be Steem though.
Success will be dependent on how they address these two issues imo.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Hopefully this post will get some additional response from the community and especially the earlier investors, it would be nice to see this discussed openly.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Unfortunately since this is a low value account, it's highly likely no one will see it : (
cc/ @dantheman
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Major shitstorm forecasted for today going well into tomorrow. I keeping this tab open.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I am enthusiastic about the Steemit concept, however I think that the wealth should be spread more evenly. More transparency is definitely needed, and less confusing language is needed to explain Steemit dollars, economics, and general navigation of Steemit, although I am getting the hang of, I still had to buy a course which was helpful. If you would like more Information on this inexpensive Steemit course, click on or past in this link:
https://warriorplus.com/o2/a/k0h3k/0
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Well That's what you see in the world of cryptocurrencies. Some people made money, some lost. First there win. Anyway there is a safe option: don't power up and climb the ladder with the free steem you got. At least that what I am trying to do.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit