Yes, maybe. That's a two-edged sword. It's great to be first-to-market with a great product, but REALLY bad to be first-to-market with a shitty product. I'd prefer a Beta period or trial period because SMT is a new and radical and confusing concept to the average person, and probably for Steemians too. If it's not perfect, it will fail, and then the competition will do it better, forever. Why Being First to Market Doesn't Matter

Steem has some big advantages over competitors, both of which make it ideal for launching products that are ambitious but not polished:

1. It's operating in a new and experimental space (public blockchains) where the vast majority of participants are early-adopters and people who enjoy experiments, therefore forgiving -- even excited -- about novel products.

2. No other social network can do SMTs (period).

3. Blockchain winners/losers haven't been decided yet -- whether SMT launched today, April 2019, or after 10 other projects offered the same product, it's so early that even with strong execution, a few success stories, and a some key ambassadors, competition may win. In fact some would prefer a strategy of "second-to-market" like Apple -- The number one key to Apple's success? It was second. Many long-distance racers (bike, run, car) stay close to the leader, preferably right behind the leader, instead of trying to be the leader...then turn on the boosters when the finish line's in sight.

4. If Steem Inc needs 6 months to push out SMTs, how likely is it a competitor could do it in less time?

All questions are open ended, not rhetorical!