satoshi@satoshi : Some STEEM reading from the original whitepaper
Some of this does not make sense to me, if I were Alan Greespan then I would be investing in SILVER or Bitcoin, but not in STEEM. I aggressively oppose some of the arguments in the whitepaper. The most common mechanisms of demand and supply are not addressed properly. There is absolutely nothing in common when comparing STEEM to SILVER or any other natural resource.
All this mumbo-jumbo "sounds" very smart, but I am a simple-thinking man, let me say it like I am talking to a friend:
Would I stack SILVER if I would get double the amount of SILVER for every ounce of SILVER I hold? Let's call that "rewards" for "proof of stake" for holding SILVER. And would I buy and stack SILVER if I knew that the "silver" is just "steem" since it is synthetically manufactured? Good question! When STEEM rockets up to USD 3000 in 2022, I will be out of here. But the question is: "Will the government of steemit.com allow me to power down in a time frame that is bareable?" And comparing STEEM to BTC is totally insane, it's really not the same finite "stuff".
Obviously, after reading the whitepaper, you will be convinced that further huge Poloniex and exchange problems are going to suspend your balances at the latest in 2019. Where exactly does the rounding error get transferred to? Another STEEM millionaire will be made out of thin air, Lambo already on order for delivery on the ... XX.XX.2019?
Is steemit.com a scam, a snowball, a Ponzi, a Madoff, or not a scam? Please comment below. The following is an extract of the original whitepaper:
Impact of Token Creation Rate At first glance, 100% annual increase in the STEEM supply may appear to be hyper-inflationary and unsustainable. Those who follow the Quantity Theory of Money may even conclude that the value of STEEM must fall by approximately 5.6% per month. We know from countless real-world examples that the quantity of money does not have a direct and immediate impact on its value, though it certainly plays a role. Because 90% of all STEEM created is distributed back to holders of SP, the result is similar to having a 2:1 “split” every year rather true inflation. The total rate of expenditures used to reward contributors is about 10% of the market capitalization per year, a rate well below what Bitcoin sustained for the first 7 years after it launched. Creating new STEEM to pay an incentive to a particular user or group has a negative effect on every other user’s balance in terms of their percentage of the STEEM supply. If exactly 90% of the STEEM supply is held in SP, then the negative effect of Contribution Incentives on SP holders’ balances is exactly balanced by the positive effect of Power Incentives; SP holders get more STEEM (in nominal terms) but their percentage of the chain (in terms of fraction of the total supply) is unchanged. If less (more) than 90% of the STEEM supply is held as SP, the two effects still point in opposite directions, but the positive (negative) effect becomes greater and the sum of these two effects will tend to pull the SP balance toward 90%. This “pull” does not mean that the SP value must hold at 90% over the long term, because incentive recipients will (and in some cases must) put their STEEM in SP, which means the “pull” towards 90% is not the only force on the percentage of STEEM supply held as SP. From August 2008 through January 2009 the U.S. money supply grew from $871B to $1,737B, a rate of over 100% per year and then continued to grow at about 20% per year for the next 6 years. All told the money supply in the U.S. has grown by 4.59x over less than 7 years. During that same time, the value of the dollar relative to goods and services has fallen less than 10% according to the government's price index . This real-world example demonstrates that supply is only one component of price. The price of a digital commodity, like STEEM, is driven by both supply and demand. If new STEEM is allocated to those who are holding long-term then the increase in supply is offset by the corresponding demand to hold. The impact of this change in supply is postponed until a future date when the long-term holder decides to sell. The sell pressure is then distributed over 2 years. When a long-term holder decides to exit, the supply of STEEM on the market will increase and push the price down. This downward pressure is countered when a new long-term holder decides to buy up the STEEM and convert it back into SP. We can therefore conclude that the price will mostly be impacted by a change in demand for holding STEEM long-term. Of the 100% annual increase in the virtual STEEM supply, 5% of it is in the form of Steem Dollars (SMD). SMD represents a commitment to create a dollar’s worth of STEEM in the future and does not impact the amount of STEEM on the market today. The change in debt-to-ownership ratio may impact the perceived value of STEEM, but it does not map directly into a fall in the value of STEEM. If the value of Steem rises over time, then the amount of STEEM that may be created in the future will be less and the corresponding “inflation” never actually happened. All told the total “spending” Steem does to fund content, curation, mining, and liquidity rewards amounts to just 10% APR or 1.2% per month. The same wealth transfer could be implemented without any change in the STEEM supply by implementing a negative interest rate on liquid STEEM of around 10% per month. Stated another way, it could be implemented by charging a 3% fee (similar to credit cards) on every transfer and having 1% of all STEEM transferred every single day. The Bitcoin network transfers 400,000 BTC out of 15.5M (or 2.5% daily). The purpose of liquid STEEM is to facilitate changes in ownership between long-term holders. It is this change in ownership that the network “taxes” to fund growth. This transfer tax can be avoided almost completely by automatically selling STEEM for SMD every week as the network converts SP back to STEEM. The total time spent holding STEEM will be so small that any impact of changing STEEM supply will be insignificant next to volatility and other market fees. Impact of Token Creation Rate Greater than Ninety-Percent As of May 1, 2016, over 98.49% of all STEEM has been converted to SP. This demonstrates that demand to hold long term dominates. In this environment both liquid STEEM and SP are diluted to fund rewards. For the first 2 years of Bitcoin’s life the network sustained an annual inflation rate of over 100%. For the first 5 years it was over 30%, and for the first 8 years it was over 10%. According to the tool for estimating future inflation included with the Steem source code, Steem by contrast will achieve an instantaneous annual rate of approximately 12% after just 1 year (not including the effects of SMD operations). Accounting In Steem The increase in the supply of STEEM is mostly an accounting artifact created by the desire to avoid charging negative interest rates on liquid STEEM. Negative interest rates would complicate the lives of exchanges which would have to adjust user balances to account for the negative rate of return of STEEM held on deposit. Mirroring the blockchain logic exactly would be error prone and complicate integration and adoption. Therefore, STEEM has chosen to never charge someone’s account, but instead to increase supply. This achieves a similar economic result without forcing everyone accepting STEEM deposits to implement negative interest rates on their internal ledger. A side effect of increasing the supply is that the network will require ever increasing levels of precision in its accounting. On average the number of bits required to represent a typical account will grow by 1.3 per year. It will only take 10 years before numbers involved no longer fit within the 53 bit precision supported by JavaScript or the 64 bit precision supported by CPUs. Over time the magnitude of the numbers involved grows beyond human scale and comprehension; furthermore, the least significant bits have so little economic value as to render them meaningless. In order to compensate for the ever increasing precision, the STEEM network performs a 10:1 “reverse split” every 32,000,000 blocks (about 3 years). At this point in time all balances of STEEM are divided by 10 and all prices are multiplied by 10. Cryptocurrency exchanges will have to suspend trading around this time and update the account balances and price history to reflect the “reverse split” before resuming trading. All rounding errors will be in favor of the network. Every balance may lose up to 0.009 STEEM due to rounding, but this amount of STEEM should be economically insignificant. Collectively all holders of SP will lose at most 0.009 STEEM.Edit: According to @neoxian there is a new whitepaper. My information refers to the link of the officially available whitepaper https://steem.io/SteemWhitePaper.pdf.
The white paper is out of date. It no longer has this type of inflation.
I refer to https://steem.io/SteemWhitePaper.pdf in which STEEM still devalues at 0,19% per day. Seems to me there are no changes on the basic issue that irritates me - endless synthetic doubling of the quantity of STEEM and division by 10 every 3 years until the end of times. Would you say the new whitepaper has advantages or disadvantages in relation to older versions?
Again, that information is out of date, that changed with HF 16. Steem inflates at about 8% per year and will taper down to about 1% per year. The whitepaper should have been corrected but it has not.
Where do I find the new whitepaper and why isn't the current official whitepaper corrected? Imagine the qualities of SILVER change every time the ECB makes a new hardfork public... just how public are these hardforks if they are not even documented properly and publicly?
I don't believe that Steemit is a scam. So far just participating in the community, as well as sharing and writing posts has allowed me to build up some personal Steem power. If you enjoy a platform for social media and communication there is value in Steemit. It may not be completely monetary, but it is not meant to be. That is not the main design.
Yes, you are making a good point. It is definitely better than FB in view of social media platform. Do you think investing in Steem on an exchange makes sense?
you are making a good point jegor and this problem should be resolved if you want a fair distribution system which rewards right content otherwise it will become one other technology blunder like nokia, kotak etc and overtime people will forget. they does not mentioned how human behaviour gonna play a role in their assumptions, because a simple disturbance can cause massive selloffs in the market of steem and that will have disastrous consequences. I think to remain in the game they should change over time and limit the supply of steem at some levels calculated by looking at real evidences and with caution.