I understand what he's saying (in fact I wrote something similar in the article). It just sounds too good to be true, so people are skeptical. That's why I tried to explain things in this post :)
Creating quality content costs time, mostly. That amateur content-creators can see some immediate pay-out, albeit small and only within a seven-day window, is great. Sorting through all that content and reading it takes time, too. What's novel about steemit is that readers are paid to create comments (meta-content), themselves, and are incentivized to actively help decide the value of what's added to the social network. Hopefully as the steemit community becomes more savvy and discerning (and bots are squashed), we'll see more curation of truly awesome content.
I understand what he's saying (in fact I wrote something similar in the article). It just sounds too good to be true, so people are skeptical. That's why I tried to explain things in this post :)
Creating quality content costs time, mostly. That amateur content-creators can see some immediate pay-out, albeit small and only within a seven-day window, is great. Sorting through all that content and reading it takes time, too. What's novel about steemit is that readers are paid to create comments (meta-content), themselves, and are incentivized to actively help decide the value of what's added to the social network. Hopefully as the steemit community becomes more savvy and discerning (and bots are squashed), we'll see more curation of truly awesome content.
Time is money haha