You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Steem price and low demand - Fix it finally! Solution is waiting
Central bankers are desiring inflation at least 2% and many people consider it criminal. How could Steem survive 10-100% ? I thought we wish to model fair and sustainable environment. Even those 2% means if you save 1000$ and in 50 years you'll give to your grandson, he will get only about 30% of the initial value.
I never said I supported high inflation. Though I will say that personally I think holding money (without making any productive investment with it) for 50 years and expecting that to not lose a lot of value is somewhat dubious. Realize that 50 years ago we didn't have any sort of personal computers, (landline) phone calls cost a fortune, air travel was in its early stages, and we barely had color TV. I don't think holding for a few years should take a similar hit though.
What you're saying about computers, TV and traveling is right but I don't see it as a consequence of inflation. I believe fair money should just keep value. If it preserves value, people will invest anyway to support/get/create additional values. Investing just because of fear from loosing value is sick and leads to irrational or even dangerous decisions. And with just those 2% annual inflation (which is so low that never happened in fiat money history) rather don't ask where all the value (over 60%) goes in those 50 years. Definitely not to those people who are working, investing & risking and creating something useful. Majority of it goes just to system bloodsuckers.
I wasn't suggesting that those improvements were the result of inflation, but that the world has changed so much I'm not sure it makes sense to expect money to have the same value in terms of purchasing power. Imagine living in a poor country where the typical income is $10-20 per day. You can probably buy a decent meal by the standards of the local economy for fifty cents or maybe less. Take that fifty cents with you when you move to New York City and you can't buy a decent meal any more. The economy in New York City bears little to no resemblance to that in a poor village. In my view, that is similar to what happens over long periods of time. When you are talking about enormous changes in the economy over 50 years, unless that money has been actively involved in the economy and has grown with it, I'm not sure equivalent purchasing power in a completely different economy is a reasonable expectation. I respect that you may not agree.
However, where we do agree is that over modest time periods money should retain value. If it is losing a lot of its value within just a few years or even less, then something is wrong, and I agree that when this situation occurs people make poor, destructive and even dangerous decisions out of fear of seeing their money disappear. I'm also not a fan of inflation that benefits bloodsuckers. You can't really generalize though. Most of the inflation in this system benefits bloggers like you.
I see your point. Changing prices in general is not the problem I'm referring. You're right, nothing can promise you constant purchasing power. Problem is printing / issuing new units and diluting original supply. This degrades whatever unit you hold and it's hidden taxation of your wealth and it's always considered unfair. And it also brings outflow of investment capital unless it is either some monopoly like reserve currency or something that is demanded by law. If it's optional, you just don't want to hold it - unless you're doing it for charity or some higher purpose. If Steem creators don't care about that, I'm fine with that but then I don't see any reason for having Steem, SP and SD. It will crash anyway. If they do care and they want to create top social network with millions of users and working business model, they should support investment with no (or very low) inflationary environment. Investors are already suffering with lot of losses already - $ inflation, exchange rates, gain taxes, etc. I don't take argument that bloggers benefits from inflation because investors must benefit first so bloggers can benefit. No investors, no rewards for bloggers. Look how rewards plunged during last month due to the outflow of investment and related price decline.
In cryptoland the opposite is dubious.
[I'm answering your later comment]
I have no idea the markets decide that not me.
If you are looking for someone to support the investor-unfriendly "features" of Steem, it won't be me. I think I said the same thing when we discussed this on bitcointalk.
Cryptoland has not existed for anything close to 50 years (much less longer), nor has it ever been a consistent store of value. It isn't at all clear what works or doesn't work long term in crypto. Note this does not mean I am supportive of Steem's investor-unfriendly structure. I've never been a fan of it, though I do see some aspects of it having a purpose.
I can't reply to your other comment because of nesting, but it is incorrect that pre-spike there was no app. The site was up and running for two months and there were quite a few users, possibly a similar number to now (many of the "spike" users are now gone). It was actually a reasonably-well-known source for crypto news and articles and posts were being widely linked by other news site and blogs (this was around the time of the DAO debacle and many of the posts were about that). So I think the price comparison is pretty fair.
My point is that people in crypto expect to gain money, that's a big use case in crypto that you can't deny, if you try to convince them to invest in steem by making such statement they are going to run away.
So you think the price right now for steem is fair?
My opinion is that steem is at a clear disadvantage compared to other cryptos because the speculation/investors/traders part is non existent in steem. Steem with only 10% inflation right now would definetely be in the top 5 cryptos. It has much more future potential than coins like litecoins or monero and investors would be pourring in money right now if they could without being debased or locked.