Disruptive technologies, speculative capital, and Thinking Big about Steemit
Interviewer: Tell us, you know, simply, what Facebook is and what it does.
Mark Zuckerberg: So, I think Facebook is an online directory for colleges and, um, it's kind of interactive.
A challenge of understanding early disruptive technologies is that it's usually difficult to identify the core feature and too easy to get caught up in the details of the product's scope.
In that early 2004 interview, Mark Zuckerberg, holding a fraternity-style beer pong cup, saw Facebook as a utility tool for colleges. This was a lofty goal for a 20-year-old internet entrepreneur in 2004. Facebook's "interactive" features were, um, a nebulously interesting afterthought, wholly unexplored and unproven at the time.
Knowing everything you know now, how would you describe Facebook differently sitting on Mr. Zuckerberg's couch in 2004? How has the scope of Facebook evolved at scale? How does real-time commenting, Timeline, emergency services, or the Facebook Live Map mesh with ideas of scope and interactivity? And isn't human interactivity, not the scope of which markets Facebook serves, the principal dimension in which the company collects its rent?
When looking at Steemit, it's easy to see a publishing tool with interesting and unproven economics.
“It’s basically an incentivized social media platform,” said Steemit’s chief executive, Ned Scott, in an interview.
But if you desire to Think Big about the Steem experiment, it would serve well to learn from previous disruptive technologies and posit that the success case of the platform goes far beyond a social media application. In actuality, it lies in the economics.
“I don’t know why it has value,” said Tone Vays, head of research at BraveNewCoin [...] “It just goes to show how you stick the words ‘New Crypto’ in front of something and speculators just come running.”
The question of why people throw cryptomoney around on risky, unproven, exciting, entrepreneurial, and cutting-edge technology endeavors is either an insurmountable conundrum or utterly obvious to any pimply cryptonerd. But I propose that it doesn't matter.
What matters is that if the crowdfunding effects of, at best, future expectations of value and, at worst, irrational exuberance can be packaged into a relatively safe mechanism to bootstrap mainstream decentralized products and venture capital-less companies, then what we have here, Ladies and Gentlemen, is a highly disruptive economic technology.
What if entire industries could leverage speculative value found in cryptomarkets not only to bootstrap social networks at scale, but also airlines, telecoms, and solutions to globally-sized problems?
While it is not yet clear exactly what "publishers and advertisers coming to Steemit" looks like, imagine business models where platform critical mass is much more well-defined. What if you could get institutional customers to give indications of interest for aspirational products without ever investing in their development? "Hey guys," the Louvre Museum might say, "if you build a global database of attributive media metadata, we would, like, totally buy that. For $n million." How about that for a down-to-earth raison d'être driving "speculative capital" in Steem and Steem-like platforms?
At the end of the day, we need to think about whether speculative capital business models are sustainable. And if they are not sustainable in the current form, are there modifications that make them sustainable? If this new economics succeeds, the scope of Steem will grow far beyond social media publishing. Venture capital will be disrupted, or at least shocked, by a proliferation of companies which fund themselves. Investors everywhere will be buying and investing in platform cryptoassets. And, I dare say, next-generation cryptofunds are going to have long waiting lists of investors wanting to get uncorrelated, liquid, and high-growth returns.
You can bet in the bull case that Steemit it will be much different than it is today. And it will be the core feature and not the scope that won the battle for disruption.
Note: all emphasis above mine.
Jake Brukhman is co-founder at CoinFund, a blockchain technology research firm and proprietary cryptoasset investment vehicle. CoinFund’s team brings together expertise in high technology, quantitative finance, private equity research, and social innovation research to generate insights into this exciting growth space. CoinFund provides consulting and research services to investors and companies interested in blockchain technology. Follow us on Twitter or join the discussion on our open community Slack.
When we've talked the last few weeks, this is the lightbulb that's gone off for me. Speculative capital may not work in other cases, but if that's what Steem is, it's working here.
Steem as a blockchain and as an economic system seems almost sentient. It's an adapting market entity that rewards people for making it better. We have no idea what Steem will look like in 3 years, maybe it's not around and has flamed out (I doubt that will happen more every day). But Steem is giving us a model for how ventures CAN form now.
It's an interesting view that "Steem funds people to develop and improve itself... with itself", as you've previously put it. What is completely not clear is whether that will be thwarted by poorly converging payout economics, poorly converging quality control economics, and various economic vulnerabilities inherent in the system.
100% agree. It's going to be fun as hell to find out and watch it as it happens.
Do you think steem can be a stable cryptocurrency?
@jbrukh I like to think of STEEMIT and its entire Idea from the Crypto currency side to the distribution of funds to the content creators is all part of the new Decentralization Paradigm. It began with the Internet even taking advertising dollars and transaction fees away from their respective masters. Then came Google and they began the idea of returning Ad dollars to the "little guy." Then Facebook and now Instagram, where people with large followings, known as "Insta-Famous" can command $500 per picture/post or more. Again, Ad dollars trickling further down, and away from traditional media.
Yes, I agree. The internet was supposed to be the first decentralized technology and seems to have failed. It did manage to demonstrate disruptive P2P marketplaces of which Uber, Seamless, Airbnb, YouTube, etc. are great examples.
Ultimately those models tend to be less efficient than is possible because they still very much incorporate middlemen platforms and extraneous economic players (like advertisers). It will be interesting to see if decentralized platforms can provide the ultimate efficiency.
@jbrukh, I was going to mention Uber and AirBnB as other examples furthering the decentralization idea, or at least being disruptive enough to further along the ideas of truly decentralized ideas like Open Bazaar, Open Ledger and now STEEMIT.
FB and Instagram are incredibly centralized though. It's almost as if decentralization was a tool to extract more value from the masses by a couple of centralized entities.
@eeks, Instagram is not truly "decentralization" but it has furthered the idea of the letting the individual partake of the bounties of the platform. Now with platforms such as Open Bazaar, and now STEEMIT, the idea that you need the "money flow" to head back to the coffers of the company has changed to the idea that it the "money flow" comes back to the base, it's foundation known collectivley as "Steemians."
Full $TEEM Ahead
@streetstyle
Full STEEM ahead indeed. Good luck.
IMO, Instagram did decentralize, but on a higher level of abstraction. Previously to Instagram, photographers who would want to have their photography seen would have to approach giant centralized agencies for distribution. Now, distribution is delegated to Instagram content creators themselves (but enabled, still, by a centralized platform).
In decentralized systems we see today, both creation and distribution are enabled by full decentralization.
Maybe one day, us steemians will be laughing all the way to the bank , just like Zuckerberg @jbrukh
Were all lil Zuckernerds in waiting!!
Can you imagine if Facebook buys Streemit @nathan-s-m
You can bet in the bull case that Steemit it will be much different than it is today.
Indeed, it's highly unlikely. So one must see the potential. In a way, like treating an uncut diamond with a vision of what's to become...
In my view this could easily turn into the first mass-adopted cryptocurrency project, beyond bitcoin or exceeding bitcoin. Which (for altcoin haters) is not against bitcoin but complementary to it - as the cryptosphere grows.
I explain how Steemit will change social media forever, at Area 51!
https://steemit.com/area/@steve-mcclair/area-51-steemit-has-arrived#comments
This is a great experiment. You need creativity and innovation.
I think no one knows what will happen with steem even in 1-2 years, will this model survive or not
Agreed.
Agree with you
If steemit isnt around for at least two years, and it takes 2 years to be fully paid out from steem power.... then what?
In today age where anyone can be a millionaire at a split of a second as long as you have a great idea. Mark , Vitalik, Daniel and others took the Internet ideas by storm and made themselves millionaires overnight.
It's not crazy to think, that steemit.com will become the next Facebook. Every big thing has to start small.
It the new killer app of facebook. Facebook is already taking notice. You might want to read this https://steemit.com/steem/@tjpezlo/facebook-reacts-to-killer-app-steem-it
Thanks for the link. This is HUGE news. So it seem, I was right in my new post: Steemit will disrupt the social networks, especially Facebook: https://steemit.com/steemit/@capitalism/steemit-will-disrupt-the-social-news-market-bye-bye-reddit-and-more
I never stopped to think about that, I'm in this steemit 'magic' bubble right now. But yeah, things are gonna change eventually, and I don't think we're gonna like it. This shit is too juicy and the big companies will figure a way to pervert this platform. :(