@ned dumping coins since last year isn't helping the cause .
When I complained most people said it's a good thing that STINC stake is getting smaller , that may be but it's hurting the price in the short run.
Basic question is : why has the community accepted the fact that CEO of company is constantly dumping his stake in company , wouldn't that be an obvious red flag in the usual corporate world?
I'm totally for ned dumping his coins, for the reasons you already stated. He owns and controls way too much stake! Way too much.
what about the second part of that question ?
1 yeah, I've always accepted that the terrible distribution was going to create a long term period of sell pressure.
Yes, it's a good thing he's selling, so there is a greater chance of redistribution on here. But there is also the second part, which @itstime is trying to point out.
I think you're holding up too much hope for this blockchain. It's admirable but still, you have to see facts for what they are. CEO dumping might mean nothing like that to you, but for the people we're trying to attract (which a great part of your post speaks about), this is exactly what it might be implying. "CEO and largest stakeholder is powering down even at a ridiculous price". Speaks a lot about project confidence and valuation.
Anyways, i'm here for now. But i won't let my love for this place hinder me from seeing things as they are presently.
How does it not show low confidence CEO ?
If ned thought STEEM is going to 100 in few years he woudln't be auto-selling it ...once or twice sale to cover expenses is understandable but auto sell ??
Do we have any idea what his real stake is? He could be moving it from his highly visible account to ones that nobody knows about? He might have a large tax bill from last year or he might be using the money to put back into Steem projects? There's no way we should rely on Ned, so I don't have a problem if he's selling. When he's sold, that selling pressure is gone and we don't have to worry about it. Maybe he's doing something that wont be good for the rest of us but I think its obvious that we shouldn't be relying on Ned now.
He has about 1m liquid steem in the ned account
From what I have read , it's mostly going to exchanges which inturn means selling for Fiat.
Probably but isn't that also a good way of hiding sending it to other steem accounts? He should be transparent and tell us if he's selling all his steem, like Charlie Lee was when he sold his Litecoin.
His own personal stake isn't that large and was never really that large given his position. The collective of the ninja-mine including the steemit account and the founder accounts (including to be fair neds) is a much bigger deal.
I think what we have seen is this just isn't a model that works. Startups (whether companies or projects) need to raise external capital from committed investors with a long time horizon (and preferably some accountability) not just printing your own money and dumping it into liquid markets destroying the value of the very thing you are relying on.
Okay, well, I do realize that Steem is unique in that the price of Steem greatly effects its popularity because of upvote payouts in SBD. However, Bitcoin had to go through years of wild rides, maybe Steem just hasn't paid its dues.
Can't we be patient for the value to move in over time? I see Steem as having great fundamentals, and while its definitely a dark horse right now, it is growing. In my mind, the true expansion and killer app are the SMTs and also getting NFTS onto Steem. Honestly, while I do believe SMTs are important, I think NFTs are more important for giving talented people the ability to sell their eBooks, art, photos, eCards, eComics, movies and any other digital product you can imagine. Nothing out there matches up with NFTs as well as Steem does. Its potential is to be OpenBazaar on crack.
Bitcoin is a completely different model. For one thing the supply is distributed over 100+ years (50% of remaining every four years) it isn't instantly assigned 80% to the founders and then dumped over a few years. Apart from it simply being much, much larger with more demand, even years ago compared to Steem now.
Sure there are interesting things that can happen on Steem but unfortunately they are hobbled by broken economics and a dysfunctional ecosystem structure. It may still yet succeed but the odds are stacked against it for these reasons.
Fair enough, but if we forked away we would likely experience the erosion that BCH is experiencing right now. We lost Dan, so if we kick out Ned we're probably headed down the same devastating direction as BSV is right now.
You may be right. IMO the ideal situation is NOT to lose Ned (in fact to go out of our way to keep him) but to also have everyone take a hard look at things and recognize that the model needs some iteration.
Agreed, over time the steemit pool on the blockchain will diminish as competition between actors will increase and create new ponds, some will be turbid, some will be clean waters...
Competition by exclusion will lead to devastating effects.