I think that the value of Steem, the role of dapps and the quality of content are somewhat different things. I also think that the motivations for joining and staying and/or leaving bear thinking about. I saw a recent post from @aggroed (https://steemit.com/witness/@aggroed/is-hf21-a-trap) in which he argues the necessity for HF21 and at the same time extols the virtues of communities.
I suspect that those of us who have blogged for years for the love of it, as opposed to a monetary return, and who cannot invest in Steem, have a completely different perspective. I came in the hopes of using sweat equity to build up a head of Steem. I was a late adopter and it didn't work for me. Others, whose currencies have even less value than the ZAR, can, and do use sweat equity. However, where that is not possible, why do we stay?
Because of the community.
Because of the promise of monetisation. Ultimately.
HF21, after the damage of HF20, I have to view with jaundice. MHO.
Agreed, community is what keeps many around.. And that is an important part, but we can't expect everyone to have that be enough. There does need to be real economic value in Steem if only to pay for the servers that host the content and the computers and electricity of the witnesses to secure and validate the chain.
@bengy
There is an additional element: Steemit would not function if it were not for the people on the blockchain. There needs to be some return for them and if I were to view my engagement here from the perspective of ROI - and purely in economic terms - and I include sweat equity because in my line of business, time is money - I should have dumped it a long time ago.
Why do I stay, in addition to the community? Well some of that has to do with the dapps that I use and which make it seamless to post to the blockchain and which offer me a value-add. What I will add, which is as important is that I was blogging/microblogging from those platforms before Steemit, so its part of that which keeps me here.
One last point: If the propsect of realising returns for the sweat equity does not improve and I'm offered other opportunities that are commensurate with what it's worth, well, that, too is a no brainer. I'm gone. I'll get @jaynie's boot and probably end up off the platform.
Fiona
and now that these changes will decrease the economic value for most small-medium sized accounts.... lol
it really doesn't make sense.
If steem needed money to keep running and had to take a little from everyone in proportion to their size... go for it
but the money that is being taken from authors is not going back into the pool evenly distributed.
curation rewards are stake based.
for the large account that gives a huge upvote - and then gets curation back? they're getting back double.
for the small account that gives their "huge" upvote - (100% for them, but still only .01) their curation rewards are being doubled... from what? 0.001 to 0.002?
but the huge accounts - THEIR curation rewards are being doubled too. from $2.00 to $4.00??? or much more???
it doesn't seem very fair to me.
Yes, definitely in the short term the effect is to decrease the non-big accounts get. However, it does give some reason (albeit small at the moment) to use the author earnings to power up rather than to sell.
Anyway, I only know that economies are much more complex and non-linear systems than what many expect. I only know that there will be unexpected results, quite probably not the ones we expect... And that I just have no idea!
... Which does lead me to wonder why an economist or two isn't consulted about these economic changes? It appears that in the crypto space (not just Steem) we fall into the trap that there are easy and simplistic cause and effect...but that is off topic, just interesting (and not a comment on you, just digressing...).
take a look at the new post... im about to tag you in it.
;)