You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: So who is actually paying the Steemit bill?
Honestly, I mostly recommend people I know from other networks to post their photography and art here, but I usually explicitly recommend to not invest actual money (or a significant amount of time).
Steemit has to grow at least 10-15% a year in order to make up for its dilution and to be interesting for investors. So it's a speculative game, who knows maybe it will become as big as reddit or even bigger, as it also can provide other functionality.
because it is no direct competitor to Bitcoin and is thus very inclusive
well, in my impression, Ned and/or Dan sometimes doesn't sound very "inclusive" of Bitcoin, quite the opposite.
Same here when it comes to investment recommendations to people with no financial background. I never told anyone to do what I do myself (risk own money). What is more troubling to me, as a financial advisor, that I would not know what to tell a savy investor either. That's bothering me.
As for Ned and Dan and Bitcoin: ok, interesting. I will watch that. I had the impression that they both love BTC and Steemit would not even work without it.
My impression. They did it backwards..... They want the readers to pay. It makes zero sense to me, rewards should have been skewed more towards reading and making relevant comments. As it stands, a new user can read/love/and vote all day, but unless there is a highly unlikely set of circumstances they will never see $.001 SBD for their efforts.
Why the hell they want only authors? Makes no sense to me.
What do you mean by "paying"? If you don't attract people and give them good reasons to put Dollars or Bitcoin on the line, STEEM is not much more than Reddit Gold. It does not make much difference who gets the most Reddit Gold, does it?