Of all the times I wanted to watch instead of read @jerrybanfield’s work, this was one. But, once I started reading, decided to commit to the end.

Interesting takeaways are as follows:

• A transparent budget proposal funding system designed to reinvest some of the new Steem

Company transparency is not only a good thing; but, necessary to prevent a Bernie Madoff. The way things are now, most of the people dedicated to the Steemit platform are doing so ‘in good faith’. In real life, that can cause a serious blindside.

• this change is likely to give us exactly what we are hoping to get and be worth the discomfort of

Few things are more uncomfortable than watching an out-of-control spiral with no plan to stop it.

• The massive effort made by new users to get started often is usually rewarded with almost nothing while the very best get a few hundred dollars and some Steem power delegations that can be taken away at any time

Yep…the valueless up vote gets old. And, when those at the top don’t seem to be making any strides to change this ‘insult’ makes people do that know when to run move.

• probably impossible for most while being too easy for a few.

This translates to those with the most money rule; while, for minnows it remains a distant pipe dream.

• If Steem does not have value interest is also irrelevant because the interest will not cover the losses.

This clearly explains the spiral. As it is regarding Steemit, until a plan is implemented to stop the arterial bleed, the real value will continue to show in the spiral.

• complete crap posts and circle jerks were also receiving huge amounts of funding while the average user received almost nothing and had little chance of changing that.

It doesn’t take a genius to see the 10-line opinion-piece netting hundreds of dollars and auto votes was an inflated rig on some level.

• with hours of edits by @lexiconical to make sure this was truly a worthwhile project that read smoothly.

Great job @lexiconical! This was without errata.

• Being an author on Steem is an ineffective method for raising money for a project beyond an initial idea

Finally, something I’ve been saying all along coming from an expert. I’ll call this a ‘tell-the-truth, shame-the-devil’ moment!

INEFFECTIVE as it is Steemians.

Can you hear this?...

INEFFECTIVE.

• Unfortunately, smart media tokens offer no way to finance promoting themselves which will make it difficult for those that would benefit most from using a smart media token to learn about it or be motivated to give it a try. If our release for smart media tokens was any indication, the excitement might peak for a few days at release and selloffs from those waiting for a peak will bring the price even lower than it was before smart media tokens were out.

Yes, SMT swiftly lost enthusiasm, when it became clear that those earning pennies as is, would have to invest from their ‘coffers’ in tokens. That wasn’t going to happen as presented.

Worth noting, @jerrybanfield's proposal requires a minimal upfront fee. This will generate Steem. If I read correctly, there will be a diplomatic, aka transparent way to determining approval for requests. I suppose an option to do 'crowdfunding' to raise the minimal fee could be incorporated. Let's face it, $10 should not be a reason a genius proposal shouldn't reach face time. JMHO....

• We pay 40,000 Steem to help them pay their costs in launching the smart media token. They then drive millions of dollars of purchases of Steem through their new NYT token which empowers users to have influence and earn more by contributing to their website. Everyone wins.

This sounds great in theory; and, if Dash is an example of this, I agree that it would be worth the try; and, hopefully prevent the need for ads to show up on the blog platforms.

• Over the last year, we have seen more people come and go in Steem than stay.

Yep, a lot of ghost accounts. @penguinpablo’s weekly summary really helps keep things in perspective.

• Having the confidence to allow 200,000 Steem out on the open market every 28 days is a sign that Steem is valuable enough to handle any temporary price drops and actually may lead to a price increase from the extra volume on trading days.

I don’t want to be me of little faith on this one; but, I keep hearing may lead to price increase. At this point, optimism is definitely a necessary ingredient to keeping the positive vibes afloat. There’s a lot of ranting going on in the platform; a lot of disgruntled users. I’m human, and have had to reel the negativity back in, and squash it.

• Every day we are losing almost as many users as we are gaining.

Yes, the loss is real. I’m sure the negative publicity given by users doesn’t help matters.

• It is riskier to do nothing than it is to try.

Yes, I believe those at the top are in their virtual conference rooms at this point saying, “What do we have to lose?”

Thanks for the post!

God’s Best on the plan’s outcome.

Peace.