RE: HF21: What Makes Steem Valuable?
So I just skimmed through your posts linked above (sorry I didn't have time right now to fully read them) but I really think you're on to something there. I would love to see an SP holding based subscription model for content.
Off the top of my head I'm thinking there could be a front-end where content creators can choose a subscription level, for example 100 SP, to have access to their content. So that means if I want access to that content I have to have at least 100 SP in my account and then when i click some button to access a particular piece of content it will "unlock" it by submitting an upvote from my account.
I think that would be really cool and, if done correctly, could actually incentivize a significant number of people to invest in Steem Power.
Patreon 2.0?
It's more about selling the idea to consumers. It's already happening all around us, people just don't realize it.
Every time an "established" content producer shows up, what happens? People cheer because they have a large following. The established content producer then starts churning out content, but their following doesn't come with them, and the ones who do, don't buy STEEM. The established content producer forgot to secure their place here by explaining to their followers the benefits of purchasing STEEM and upvoting over the long term. They still ask for "donations". That money is thrown away and the consumer or follower must then donate again, and again, and again. That's silly, when we have a platform like this. Instead of donating, invest. Then if that content producer isn't performing up to the consumers standards, they can have their money back, or go support someone else, without ever needing to throw money away in the form of donations, ever again. Because these established producers fail to secure their future here, they often leave after only a few months, and the "benefit" of them simply showing up is nil.
You guys already get it. If someone plays Splinterlands, and gets bored, they get their money back. Aggroed said something along the lines of what I'm saying while promoting Splinterlands at a recent conference. The consumer can have their money back, plus more, if they decide they're no longer interested in playing. Games are part of the entertainment industry I speak of, so it's not hard to shift some of those billions over to your product. It's already working. People just don't realize it.
I'm not talking about a paywall, but I've written posts about what you're saying.
The whole point is to make the consumer realize the benefits of investing in content rather than buying it, or donating to content producers. Offer incentives like the 50/50 rewards split to encourage more consumers to consume. There should be far more consumers than content producers here, like in the entertainment industry, because that's how this works.
The fact is, people already spend the money. STEEM can offer them a better deal, with any form of entertainment consumption.
This is about educating content producers as well. There's a reason why you can't find content from an established producer describing to their following the things I'm trying to point out. They didn't know, but if they did, everyone benefits.
Thank you for explaining this well here. @starkerz and @oracle-d have been working with a model like this for companies and governments as well, encouraging them to invest in Steem Power to pay people involved via the rewards pool. It may work, or it may get downvoted. The key is still education, helping people understand how ti works. Now with Steem Engine tokens, communities with their own tokenomics rules can experiment with different approaches.
You're welcome.
Yeah, a delegation economy. I mentioned that idea in a post I wrote a while back. Think I called it "Steem Is Not Facebook, Steem Is LinkedIn" or something. The value I saw in Steem was its potential to create a delegation economy where you don't have to give money, just vote authority.
That said, the haters of self-voting ruin that entire aspect of Steem, because without the 100% value of the upvote given to the company I don't think the numbers work.