If Steemit breaks then it will happen the same as with Bitcconect. When those who worked and believed do not have much interest in working, then Steem will also pull down. It's not a point in a nice interface, the point is in earnings that investors and users get on the basis of work-blogging. If I were at @ned, I would never shut down Steemit because it was a PR project that promoted Steem from the start. A lot of people have enriched themselves, but there are those who will become rich, but if Steemit does not exist then there will not be a Steem value, at least not for a long time. I wish my opinion would be totally wrong, but it is again based on experience and facts that you can compare with many other missing projects.
The solution is to make Steemit reorganize and train for further work, and decentralization is just one of the factors that can help but not be crucial in this situation and at this moment.
There is some truth in this, but also there are much less obvious issues this touches on. The ninjamine has been an issue from the outset, and remains disturbing today. It's a sort of golden parachute that may yet allow the Goldman Sachses of the world to reform Steem in a way that precludes it's disruptive effect on the enemedia. While that might not appear to be a profitable transaction for such an entity, given substantial investments in legacy media such a transaction might be extremely profitable on other books.
The disruptive potential of censorship resistance, decentralization, and forthright speech in the world today is also largely unrecognized by many. Steemit et al. could well be far more valuable than the focus on Steem by Stinc suggests, particularly were Steemit able to be a vector for SOC (SMTs, Oracles, and Communities). However, upending the apple cart of media social control is fraught with resistance. There are mechanisms (such as the extant bear market) that are extremely difficult to overcome, and Stinc may be unable to have much certainty of successfully prosecuting such a revolution.
I am not at all surprised by this, given my own experiences with such opposition networks.
My point is that Steemit may be far more than simply PR for Steem, and that @ned and Stinc may not have the ability to capitalize on their opportunities to advance both business models presently. It has been proposed lately that Steemit users setup a kickstarter and simply buy Steemit out, which would decentralize ownership of the ninjamine stake (floating that golden parachute, albeit at an inopportune moment in the market for the miners) and separate the two very different business models, leaving Stinc free to pursue their present focus.
@ned may well rightly grasp Stinc's capabilities, that business model, and have a sound plan for effecting it. He may also be right that Stinc isn't the appropriate team to run Steemit from here on out. If the folks that need Steemit and such mechanisms to prosecute free speech become organized enough to purchase and manage it, that could well be the true beginning of a revolution Steemit currently but hints it potentiates, and mark the institution of the fortunes of a new class of media moguls who eclipse current social control mechanisms. Those folks could be us.
The extant media model is hopelessly totalitarian, utterly coordinated by banksters to impose social control on a global population relatively fractured and generally incapable of seeing potential beyond the services that are on offer, censored and controlled though they be. The rise of a social media platform, freed of the scent of the original scammy ninjamine and managed by a team derived from the extant market and dedicated to delivering censorship resistance and financial support to a global population that needs those things, does indeed have the power to change the world, and prosper while doing so.
It would still need Steem, and were Stinc a leaner machine focused on that, this would be a good and profitable thing.
I didn't come here for ROI. I came to contribute to censorship resistant society, and continue to hope that the tokenization mechanism can fuel a popular adoption of that society. I am confident I am not alone, and that there remains a huge market for that revolutionary society, and further, that the would be overlords of the media are ripe for toppling right now.
I concede that Stinc may not be able to execute satisfactorily on both business models, and that @ned may have well chosen his path towards success. The truth seems to be that the aftermath of a bloodbath reeks of the scent of opportunity, and we seem to be in the midst of a cryptocurrency bloodbath, as well as a crisis on Steemit itself.
The right team running Steemit might well capitalize on the oppportunity, and Stinc's leaner and more focused execution could be critical to that undertaking. We'll have to see what shakes out as the market heaves and shudders in crypto, and legacy bankster controlled enemedia like Twatter, Fakebook, and Youtool continue to shed users and drive folks towards disruptive platforms like Steemit. Other UX are extant, and may prove to be ready for the challenge if Steemit does not.
Thanks!
Steem On to the end
I really think this is just the beginning. Folks that invested in 1990 in internet startups realized incredible gains that the dot com crash did not erase at all. Just like the internet in 1990, Steem is only a couple years old (I set up my first computer network in 1987).
This is a new disruptive technology, just like the internet itself was back then. I expect exponential growth soon, and the foibles and mistakes being made will be quickly forgotten when that growth happens.
I am sure 100%