A comment reply turned into a root post...
This started as a long comment reply, but I figured I'd just go ahead and do a root post instead as others might find value in it also.
This post is a reply to a comment by @davemccoy which you can read here. He also made it a root post here. My intention is not to call him out, shame him, or embarrass him in any way. I do want to start a conversation so I figured we'd do it here instead of an already long comment thread.
I know that you will not care what I say.
Why start a discussion like that? I care quite a bit and have demonstrated that for almost two years. If you (or anyone else) has already made up your mind about me, what value is there in replying? I'll reply anyway and assume this was just a poor choice of words.
For some context of where I'm coming from, I recommend reading STEEM Is NOT Steemit. STEEM Is More Valuable Than Steemit.
Many people come to Steemit expecting free money or a new Facebook killer. That's not reality. They have improper expectations for where Steemit is as a product. It's a reference implementation of what's possible on the STEEM blockchain. It's not the primary forcus of Steemit, inc. We can disagree or get frustrated about that, but that's reality. I met with their team in Lisbon at Steemfest2 and talked with them directly about this.
They are focused on ensuring the STEEM blockchain can support many millions of active users, not the 80k or so we get a month now. Are they wrong? Should theuy focus instead on user retention, even if the APIs and the infrastructure right now is falling down often? Shouldn't they focus on preparing for growth before they try to create more growth?
For more context:
- Eating Your Own Dog Food: Is the Steemit, Inc Team Regularly Using Steemit?
- SteemFest²: Bridging the Gap Between Perception and Reality
If you re-read what I wrote in the comment thread, I specifically did not try to tell @donkeypong why he "should keep his vote" for me. I'm giving my perspective why I don't think it's wrong for a witness like me to be fully engaged in multiple projects in the cryptocurrency space.
@davemccoy, I do understand and hear your frustration with Steemit, user retention, and more. When I first got to Lisbon for Steemfest2, I sat across from Sneak and grilled him about similar problems. His answer shocked me, and I didn't like it at all, but the more I thought about it, the more I understood it. He essentially said he doesn't care about the first million or two million users. He cares about the next 100 million users. From his perspective, once the blockchain itself is ready, along with the systems needed for mass adoption (HF20, Hivemind, Appbase, etc), then all those emails and contacts they collected will be contacted again and this time user retention will be the focus because they will be ready for growth.
That's why Steemit, inc doesn't do much (if any) marketing right now. They have a long-term strategy, and they are executing it. That strategy involves tokenizing the web (which includes Smart Media Tokens). It doesn't include just making Steemit.com a new Facebook or Reddit competitor. They want to see hundreds and thousands of competitors, all built by independent companies on the STEEM blockchain.
I'm well aware of the retention rate problem. I'm also aware of the expectation problem many new users have.
What are you doing about this? Where is the focus on this issue?
I'm trying to work with Steemit, inc and help educate people on what they are actually doing with posts like this: What is Steemit, Inc Doing???
I'm also regularly participating in the monthly witness forum (I think I've attended every time I've been asked to do so, except once because of a schedule conflict). You can hear the latest recording here: Steem Witness forum- The Recording! - Value and Organization @andrarchy mentioned numerous times how accurate my perception of what's going on is related to what Steemit, inc is actually doing.
You can find my perspective on bot farming and wealth extraction here. I'm participating in many conversations with other witnesses and Steemit, inc on changes that can be made to not only educate people to think differently about the rewards pool as a collaborative commons and to take responsibility to protect it, but also changes to the underlying economics such as potentially introducing a downvote rewards pool, changing curation reward rates, and potentially adjusting the rewards curve to no longer be linear (but not going all the way back to an exponential rewards curve). Unfortunately, many of these conversations are not public, and I'm also working on changing that for more transparency among the top witnesses, investors, and Steemit, inc.
I'm aware of what's going on, and much of it is what I've seen for two years already. Some of it (not all of it), relates to people's misaligned expectations. It's like they are tweeting to no followers and then getting confused why no one sees their content. They come for the "free" money. Like me, they probably have to figure out the real reason they are here. Many don't understand cryptocurrency (which I try to help with via http://understandingblockchainfreedom.com) or they don't understand social media, professional blogging, or branding. They show up, find it all too difficult to understand, and leave.
I get that.
It's one of the main reasons I have the support that I do from so many voters for my witness account. I focus on helping explain the technical things in simple terms so more people can understand what this place is all about and set their expectations appropriately.
The number one thing any of us can do (IMO) is help support Steemit, inc to get Appbase and Hivemind released as soon as possible. With communities and a focus on the future interface for Steemit, we won't be wasting effort trying to put bandaids on the current front-end.
You can look through the ~12k comments I've made to help educate people about cryptocurrency, STEEM, Steemit, and more if you really want an accurate picture of what I've been doing here to help people.
New users to the Steemit front-end are definitely important. I don't agree with Sneak that we shouldn't care about the early adopters. It's also important to explain STEEM to the larger cryptocurrency community, especially investors who create demand for STEEM and fund all the rewards we enjoy here. It's important to explain the value of DPOS. I do that at conferences, events, interviews, and more. You can see some examples of what I've been up to here. As a witness, I focus on where my strengths are. I could do onboarding or tech support with new users, but I think sending them this post helps instead (many have told me how much it changed their whole perspective on Steemit): #SteemitIsToMe: Relationships, Reputation, and Rewards. The value I bring relates directly to my experience in the cryptocurrency space for over five years. Some appreciate that, others do not.
All that said, I'm here, as always, listening and responding.
Let's have a conversation.
Luke, I greatly appreciate these types of posts as you are one of the few witnesses or anyone with an affiliation with Steemit Inc. willing to take a mediating position between users and the development side. Both critical and explanatory, not over-aggressive nor defensive. You're at least willing to be open and discuss the explicit concerns of the many who are struggling with all the faults of this current platform and community.
I agree with your approach of patience. Rome was not built in a day and any precedent technology to the Steem blockchain took closer to a decade to build out. I don't much care for the price, which exchanges Steem/SBD are listed on, or really much of the marketing concern that is brought up so often. These are all short-term issues to the larger vision of a global blockchain.
My increasing concern, and I believe many other long-timers share the same sentiments, is that the assumption that we should hold our breaths and everything will work out once the technology is polished is a very dangerous perspective that will ultimately harm the prospects and work against the ambitions of Steem. I am doubtful (and would love my mind changed on this) that the components that the Steem ecosystem has been seriously lacking until now - public education (more so than marketing), systematized feedback, a public presence and voice in the blockchain sector, scheduled and expected engagement and updates, more extensive resources for newcomers (including investors and institutional partners) to the Steem blockchain (not just developer tools), support for meaningful Steem-based projects with its own governance system, and so on - will suddenly get better once we're out of Beta. Old habits die hard and I'm concerned that if these facets are not worked upon or at least discussed at the top now, Steem will ultimately lose out to competitors who are covering some of the aforementioned bases very well.
I can't help but also share a bit of @schattenjaeger's sentiments here that somehow negligence (under the guise of 'priorities') on many fronts is permissible because the next 10 or 100 million users are what count. If a system isn't healthy at a small scale, it won't be healthy at a larger one. And many of Steemit's issues aren't tied to its scalability or underlying tech, they're very human issues.
Looking forward to any feedback.
Great comment, thank you.
I completely agree. So what do you think is the best thing we can do about it? My suggestion would be to get more developers involved providing issues and pull requests on Github. If there's a problem on Steemit, let's describe it accurately in an issue and start working on a code change to fix it. Yes, we can wait on Steemit inc to do everything, but, as you said, that's like just holding our breath. If we care, we should get involved. That might even mean having some witnesses hire some developers directly.
I agree to a point. Company culture matters, but I also want to move far away from Steemit, inc being the sole company that defines the culture of STEEM or Steemit. I've pointed out company culture issues in the past with Steemit, inc (and I think they are making improvements based on more open communication lately) and I agree, they should be working on this stuff now AND in the future.
Yep.
I completely agree. Ironically, this discussion was born out of me essentially defending my perspective that the witnesses should be involved in more things in the wider blockchain sector. They should be respected voices who are asked to speak at more conferences. We see some of this, but not enough. I'll be on a Panel at TulipCon next weekend and Discon in August not because I'm a STEEM witness, but because of my involvement with DPOS in general and more specifically EOS, eosDAC, and (yes) STEEM. In all cases, I'll be discussing the goal which is to increase human well-being and create a world we all want to live in. The tools we use to do that are just tools. If we want our voices heard outside of the STEEM community then we need to be deeply engaged outside the STEEM community.
I've read those previous posts regarding involvement in other blockchains and I think the tribalism is silly. One of the things Steemit really has going for it is its capacity to house information and development of all other blockchains. Facebook and Google and Amazon might compete on some fronts but they work in tandem in others and that makes for a more robust ecosystem. Putting on blinders and swearing loyalty oaths in an emerging sector isn't just silly but also poor self-preservation.
I'm all for non-witness non-Steemit Inc. stakeholders in picking up slack and spearheading what they respectively see as needed in this community. I try to do the same with @voronoi at @sndbox. The biggest obstacle is the lack of connectivity between individual efforts and administrative ones. I give lectures and workshops about Steem in New York and yea, we can tweet and post about it but it doesn't quite accumulate into broader publicity and education. We've also found that it reflects poorly on Steemit Inc. when we do major projects/activities and there isn't at least some degree of involvement from the top. The same goes for your talk and @stephenkendal's booths or @dlive's meetups. It often feels like a 1+1+1+1 = 0.5 type of situation as a grassroots momentum of activity doesn't resonate at the top and there isn't any structured mechanism for the top to leverage the groundswell of efforts. It should be a 1+1+1+1 = 20 type of momentum but individual efforts are drowned out by the next batch of bid-botted posts and just passed over by time in general.
Maybe there can be an endorsed account dedicated to publicity? Maybe some type of formal curation/resteeming by Steemit Inc.? Some way to accumulate the diverse activities of Steemians in a cohesive dialogue and archive that is also pushed by the team high above would be incredible.
Lots of good points here. I wonder sometimes if we're just going through a transition where people need to hear from a "representative" of an organization or they want to hear a company title or some form of "authority" they can trust instead of just a bunch of random people doing awesome stuff in a meritocracy (or, at least, an attempt at one) where value speaks for itself.
Meh, I don't think you can have it both ways - an infrastructure that supposedly relies on the autonomous workings of dedicated, decentralized individuals and at the same time have a governing organization that is largely indifferent and unable to leverage the cumulative momentum of said network.
But I guess we'll see where we end up.
You nailed it @lukestokes.
I wrote the other day that I could care less if the Steemit team approved another account until the SMTs were released after getting the back end up to par.
The fact that Steemit is doing no marketing is not a problem to me. Why should they market something only to bring people to a place that cant handle the traffic. Too many believe that since the blockchain can handle x number of transactions per second, that is all there is. You know a lot better than I do there is so much more to it.
It is sad that people are set up to fail by the "steem marketers" who are posting on Facebook and YouTube...they are touting the money to be made on here. Pure foolishness. If they knew the damage they were truly causing, I dont think they would do it. Some of those people who turn away could develop the next great app on here.
We all are impatient because we can see how big this can be. I concur with the idea, dont worry about the first 1M but, rather, how can 100M-250M be handled. That is the type of traffic that the STEEM blockchain is going to have.
Thanks for all you do trying to educate the masses.
It's a tough pill to swallow for many, especially because they don't understand the technical hurdles of building a social media platform on a blockchain. So many people have talked about Steemit competitors.
Where are they?
How active are they?
This is still one of the most active (by user activity) blockchain applications out there. That's something we can be proud of right now.
I am not exactly sure why people on steemit have been showing so much antagonism towards other upcoming platforms. Let me spell out my strategy - 'When these other platforms come into existence, I will make an an account there and promote steemit like crazy'.
Today in a reply to a post by @steemitadventure (a fabulous artist) I was discussing the same thing. As long as the pros are doing their jobs, you cannot tell them what they can or cannot do.
I am sure there are a lot of people working in banks who have accounts on steemit and are earning steem here. Nobody is telling them to leave the evil banks or leave steemit (partly because they might be anonoymous).
My argument might be simplistic but that doesn't mean that it doesn't have truth in it.
Some people just operate out of fear. They see competition and they get scared. Instead, they should get more focused on providing value and leveling up their understanding. We can contribute value.
I find that hilariously arrogant to be perfectly blunt. And I always am.
Getting 100 million users is impossible without getting the first million. Getting two users is impossible before getting the first.
That's like starting a company from scratch, and telling your customers during the first few years that they don't matter, who matter are the customers who come after you.
Take a guess how long that company stays in business.
And even if it does, it's still extremely rude and egomaniacal to say something like that to those who had a part in building something for the 100 million users.
No matter how big or small their contribution.
I agree with you and told him as much in Lisbon. Sneak and I have had... interesting interactions. Sometimes I don't understand where they are coming from and try to gain as much value from the conversation as I can, but sometimes I'm just like, "Huh?"
That said, the point of prioritizing first things first does make sense. When Steemit, inc was falling down hard, focusing on marketing and promotion and user retention doesn't make sense as something to prioritize.
I think Steemit has a nice head start and many people are still excited about the idea of getting paid for content here, but I also think they need to get some code in production quickly or, as you said, they will have trouble "staying in business." Their communication efforts lately are a big improvement from what we saw in the past, and I'm quite happy about that. There's still room for improvement in many other areas, especially demonstrating care for new users here.
Isn't Sneak German? So, it could also be a case of his words just coming out wrong since it's not his native language. I just felt compelled to be fair enough to point that out.
That's an important point, thanks for bringing it up. I try not to be judgmental or condemning. Sometimes I have trouble understanding some people and it's possibly just cultural.
The more user-friendly apps will be built when SMTs come out, I'm sure. Along with thousands of other apps that will focus on user retention.
User retention is important to a certain point though, because if Steem doesn't retain a good number of users until SMTs come out, the price will tank, and we're all screwed. But with al the activity I see on here, I think we're pretty safe for the time being.
Do you think user activity directly relates to price?
What about cryptocurrencies which have no "user activity" at all?
Maybe give my post on STEEM > Steemit a read. It might give you some valuable perspective.
And yes, I agree, user retention will be huge for polished apps built by real companies with real business objectives.
Interesting and I have been hearing more and more from many sides lately.
I will say this, no matter what ANYONE is saying, I have found your willingness to be available to discuss, whether it is online, on Discord at different Witness discussions, etc, to be commendable.
I don't agree with you on 100% of the issues. No one does. I also don't agree with any other witness or developer on 100% of the issues. That's life on the blockchain... but, no one can doubt your commitment to making the Steem platform better.
And as long as you are willing to discuss and move forward, THAT'S what is important to me.
I think it's important for witnesses to be social in order to understand and support the applications built for a social platform.
I'm glad to not agree 100%. That would be boring and would bring no growth at all.
yes... friction ironically helps, not just grinds!
maybe the issue is not the platform evolving but the ones that it is sacrificing on the way. the social media app that we use today is no less important to all the other apps that are going to come in.
i think a sincere attempt must be made to retain the users who got steemit to a point where real apps can come on board.
is it possible that the comment about "not caring for the first million user" is misrepresented? because i cannot imagine a company or a community that can make that statement and then expect to retain the goodwill that will carry them upwards in the future.
Maybe what @davemccoy is saying is that a company could care less but a community always cares. that is the difference, isn't it?
let us put this into a different perspective. most startups struggle to get a user base going. blockchains like steemit get it with far less difficulty by promising rewards. then when the user base leaves, can we make a comment that they dont matter since their job is done and their usefulness is over? in fact blockchains should have high loyalty to its members because they are indeed the difference makers.
i don't know about the rest of you but the reasoning sounds hollow to me.
However i can understand the line of reasoning the minute we stop thinking like a community and instead fancy ourselves as a company or corporation. then everything makes perfect sense.
let us hope that we do our sincere best to retain users who have been part of the community from the outset and who have brought it to this point
Exactly this!
The STEEM blockchain and all the applications built on top of it are not a "company" but an open, permission-less system that anyone can participate it.
WHY they participate is completely up to them to determine. Each individual has to find their own reasoning for value here. That's ultimately not anyone's job other than the individual.
I'm done trying to convince people to get involved in cryptocurrency. I tried that for far too many years with limited results. Instead I'm just going to show them. Steemit is a way to do that.
New users such as myself that have just enough knowledge to understand that steemit is more valuable as a long term commitment appreciate all you do to educate us and improve the platform 🙏🏼 Thank you!
You're very welcome!
🙏🏼☺️