When in doubt, zoom out!
Bitcoin looks to be ready to rock and roll for the next 3 years
While I don't think the below chart will be accurate in terms of a peak, I do think that it will probably get pretty close to predicting the bottom.
Check this out:
(Source: https://twitter.com/AurelienOhayon/status/1610013307619901441/photo/1)
Bitcoin hitting $250k is possible, and might even be reasonable, it just seems hard to throw out a number so much higher when we can't break $20k currently.
During a bull market everything changes and a lot can happen over the next couple years.
That being said the lows look like they will be somewhere around these levels.
i think we are going there!
I agree about the bottom, but I think the next peak is in the neighborhood of $120-140k. The number of doublings per halving has been dropping rapidly, so my guess is that we only see 1 doubling or less, this cycle.
Copy a chart from twitter and earn 150 Dollars - that's STEEM of nowadays.
It's not even sad anymore ... it's just grotesque.
Tragedy of the Commons
We need a new generation of bot technology that delivers rewards to investors without polluting the blockchain. My idea would be to have the bid/delegation bot sponsor a team of quality writers and distribute their rewards by means of beneficiary rewards in something like a PPS distribution.
Unfortunately, I'm not the decision maker. ;-)
Well, I already answered to @jondoe.
Investors without any interest to produce quality content should be able to stake their STEEM and that's it. :)
It's not exactly like that.. it's more like invest (risk) $200k of your money into steem, delegate it, and earn a return on your investment.
Then introduce a staking mechanism instead to force the investors to spam a blockchain which claims to be based on "proof of brain" and 'quality content'!
Otherwise: how does that look for potential new users or also investors if a social media platform is flooded with low quality high earning content?
I would never ever invest in STEEM as long as it looks like that, and I am a top ten Splinterlands investor.
There should be completely separated reward pools, one for authors and real content producers and one for pure stakers.
Who decides to be a staker could still post but not earn by posting anymore.
Who decides to be an author could earn by posting but wouldn't get any interest for their SP.
If you don't find a way to reward really good posts, opposite to SPAM like this here, I see no future at all for STEEM.
You are preaching to the choir, but I am not the decision maker around here.
Though one thing I would caution you on is your use of "quality content". What exactly is quality content?! In traditional social media often a meme is much more popular (and valuable to its consumers?) then a 5 page dissertation on why I think dust is better than sand... though the dissertation may have taken days or weeks to put together, does that make it "higher quality"?! Not really...
Steemit was never promised to be a place where someone with no investment could show up, write a "high quality" post and automatically investors in the platform would reward them with money. Like in traditional social media, there are many factors at play here... for example if you posted a picture of a banana you ate for breakfast on instagram, would that generate many views or interaction amongst the masses?! Probably not, but if Kim Kardashian posted that same banana...
Of course it does!
There are objective criteria for evaluating content.
How good are spelling and grammar?
How is the formatting?
Has serious research been done and are the results backed up by reputable sources?
Did the author include his own creative ideas, statistics, calculations etc. in his posts or does he just reproduce what can be found thousands of times on the internet anyway?
Short posts can be good if they contain original ideas. Otherwise, however, I see no reason in principle to want to emulate the low quality of conventional social networks. You can just as well orientate yourself on platforms like Reddit or Instagram, where higher-quality content can definitely be successful.
You should be able to upvote short posts, but I would normally never give them a full 100% upvote (apart from the fact that I don't have any STEEM power any more anyway).
Of course it was. Not "automatically", but it was! Exactly that was the idea at the beginning.
It wasn't meant to be the only way to earn money on STEEM, it wasn't meant to be atomatically, but YES, the idea was to reward good authors (beside benefiting of curation reward and hope on an increase of the STEEM price).
And there were many and very well rewarded great authors until the bidbot sickness kicked in which was the first nail in the coffin of STEEM!
STEEM was a top ten crypto currency once ... STEEM is a JOKE nowadays, and the only reason why I lead a hopeless discussion like this is that I didn't completely forget and sometimes still miss the good old times of STEEM.
While we are on this though, the thing that made the most sense to me was SMTs. You have social media tokens that users can earn from social interactions/posting etc, and the inflation turned way down on steem and the steem blockchain simply runs the network that all these communities and tokens run on... so you separate the social aspect from steem and just have steem power the network. The social tokens are what people can earn in the different communities and sites... it seems that idea mostly went out the window long ago though.
Concerning SMTs I have mixed feelings. But yes, these days I would have been happy if they had delivered them, so that one could have found out what their impact had actually been.
Now on HIVE there aren't SMTs but many different community tokens. However, as far as I can judge that, most of them struggle to gain some real value.
So the question would have been, if SMTs were able to provide financial value and thus a strong incentive to create content.
However, even if the different token on HIVE don't work really well, overall I have the impression that HIVE made at least one right step to take down bidbots.
I don't like the HIVE witness 'oligarchy' at all, but it seems that at least there are better posts in average with more user interaction in the comment section, which means the HIVE platform looks less like a deserted, bot inhabited ghost town. :-)
The idea in the beginning was that users could use their stake (their investment) to vote on what they liked. If you liked dissertations on dust you could upvote that, if you liked memes you could upvote those too. If you just liked an author because he was a cool dude or your friend you could upvote his stuff too if you wanted to. It was all in the eye of the stake holder (investor). There was no universal set rules on what defines "quality content" for each and every stake holder (again investor) to abide by, which is more or less my point... well that and pointing out that there was more to receiving upvotes than just "quality" of the content, IE networking, engaging, posting about content a majority of users were interested in etc etc etc which brings me back to my kim k banana point..,
The idea of the biggest investors at the beginning was to attract authors which produced quality content to attract more users and investors who saw this quality content.
With shit-copy&paste-minimalism-content like nowadays you can attract neither more users nor investors, and the STEEM price obviously behaves accordingly. And don't say "bear market" now: STEEM lost more than other cryptocurrencies which can easily be seen when checking the coinmarketcap-ranking.
Of course also networking, engaging etc. plays a role, but if good content as essential ingredient of a reward based social media platform is missing then all other things won't help.
STEEM of nowadays neither offers (enough) good content nor engagement.
I know about the motto that investors should be able to do with their stake whatever they please, but responsible investors would know that they should support quality content creation and attract new users in their own interest. And at the beginning of STEEM (when I was already there!) there were far more responsible investors and stakeholders than nowadays. Now everybody squeezes as much money out as they can as long as the STEEM price isn't zero. Considering the HUGE potential STEEM once had that is a very short seighted approach in my opinion.
Of course: stake holders are free to do whatever they like, but I and many, many other potential stakeholders (who don't even make the effort to hint at the STEEM problems anymore because they don't care) are also free not to invest in STEEM because of how things are developing there.
Yep, as I said above, those are pretty much my thoughts as well. I keep looking at that $100k as a big round number that should work like a magnant during the next bullish phase.
We are here but later we will very down.
Wow I hope I can learn also that cause it's hard to be trader
Upvoted! Thank you for supporting witness @jswit.