RE: Proposed Changes to Steem Economy
Why is any of this important now? The price of Steem is moving toward its natural price point according to the economic laws of supply and demand.
People with Steem will not just keep selling Steem for lower and lower prices, some bottom number must be close to be revealed as a stable price swing trend soon . . .
Steem was just ridiculously overvalued after the july 2016 payouts and has sold reliably all the way down toward its natural market value price point. Consider this Amazon stock sells for 700 $ a share, if someone values Amazon stock at 1,200 dollars a share the price of amazon stock will auto-correct to the buyer & seller trading price ( = $700 ).
Just because some fool priced Steem at $80 a tonne or whatever price point does not mean that idiot knew the real value of a prototype platform website.
I remind all the price of steem has moved toward its normal buyer and seller exchange rate, it has not fallen at all. Plus you cannot trade stock with a buyer so the whole time someone has been paying real money to buy up steem as the price auto corrected downwards ! ! !
STEEM should also become a currency. In its current form, STEEM is very difficult to bootstrap as a currency.
Why should STEEM become a currency? What advantages will it have over SBD?
STEEM as a currency adds value to the ecosystem even if SBD becomes more effective.
I've heard this from many perspectives - same thing. Nobody wants to hold, even for commerce only, Steem. The promised inflation makes it a hot-potato only good for day-trading.
Its not even good for day trading.
Haha, puts anyone?
I don't know anything about the economics of all of this, but from my limited knowledge, I was under the impression that STEEM was basically a tool necessary to convert its short term value to long term vests. Which is why holding STEEM loses value, but powering up can actually gain interest. Am I wrong in this?
Women are fantastic with currency. Far superior than men in fact, the reason you see so many males as stockbrokers is for their career portfolios. Men are 90 to 95 % failures at making stockmarket profits. Females average 40 % as successful longer term stockbrokers. There are far fewer female stockbrokers and they are all out of sight taking money off the silly men ! ! !
That is not my opinion that is two separate written articles about stockbrokers . .
I would love to read those articles @crok :)
Unfortunately they are written in books in the bookstore. But to summarize, males are full of bluster and noise. Females tend to quieter and more in the background.
Males forget that losing money is bad and get hits of testosterone and lose money. Think about it, the real stock market does not print money, it must take profits off other speculators. Men consider they can just win more money if they make mistakes.
Females view money as safety and security, they take cash deadly seriously. Thus female traders tend to far more systematic at viewing all the data before placing their bets. Women tend to make far fewer trades but ' win ' 40 % of those gambles. Males tend to win 5 or 10 % over timed averages . . .
If you are not trading cryptocurrency maybe you should gamble five dollars : )
Just remember all the hints and tips and books and articles are designed to suck you in and make you lose money. Since i started my new trading strategy i have not lost once out of over 150 completed wins.
My winning average is 99% and you can easily learn it if you think and work out bets for yourself. never follow guesses and never follow advice : )
Consider if anyone truly knew how to make money they would make money for themselves and retire onto a yauct for life ! ! ! Anyone offering you tips or advice is out to hurt you ; )
I don't think it is a question of natural price point but more about the structure and whether hyperinflation is actually useful or just serves to make the platform more complicated and less attractive to a wider range of users and investors. I don't think it serves much if any useful purpose. It was a sincere attempt and a good experiment but now that many of us have experience with the platform and understand it better, we can see that the hyperinflation model should be dropped.
Hyperinflation, or specifically the effects of powering up, kept money off the exchanges, which has proven to be possibly the biggest point of failure in crypto. With the new changes catering to speculators, exchanges will most likely become the single biggest point of failure for steem.
We will need to get the community behind pushing exchanges to use best practices - savings accounts and account recovery partners.
yes. It shows great strengths that Dan and Ned are able to take their idea and agree that it was not the best.
hyperinflation aka steembabwe = no bueno. The worst part is that it makes the oligarchy problem even worse. A flat rate inflation is highly meaningful for the top 100 accounts and means basically nothing for everyone else. Ben Bernake would be proud, but Joe the Plumber gets fucked. The sooner it's gone the better for everyone.
"People with Steem will not just keep selling Steem for lower and lower prices, some bottom number must be close to be revealed as a stable price swing trend soon . . ."
The price has been in steady decline and could find it's bottom near doge if nothing is done.
Steemit is a totally unknown Social Media Blogging platform based automatically around a BlockChain.
The price of Steem cannot be in decline when it was purposefully overvalued in the initial phase.
All Steem has been doing is moving toward its own natural price point according to the economic law of supply and demand.
Just because people are preconditioned toward fear and the herd mentality, they are shown graphs that have no basis in reality (such as a trend line going down) and everyone starts running around like chicken little screaming the sky is falling . . .