Not really. Content (also art) have always been philanthropic in their survival.
That's not even true and I'm mildly insulted that you tried to pull that one on me. We literally have 4000 years of human history, several hundred with growing experience of how people in capitalist economies with free markets engage with creators who make content, which says just the opposite. We have a massively thriving music industry, we have a massively thriving entertainment industry, and it's not because they have depended on philanthropy for their survival.
It's because they sold something other people wanted and were allowed to do that selling and buying.
Steemit apparently hasn't been selling something that people wanted to buy, and that's not a failure of the philanthropic urge ? it's a problem of not having something that people want to buy, and then creating more pressure on creators to do something else other than create and share that content.
So that's just wrong.
Proof-of-Brain is still an integral part of SMTs, and always was ever since first SMT white paper. Even if in itself it isn't part of the Steem white paper (only of the bluepaper).
And to continue the theme, that just doesn't work. Proof of Brain does not work. We know this because we've looked at the reward patterns on the Steem blockchain over the last several years and POB just was not and is not part of the way that rewards occur. As an element of the way the system works, POB doesn't.
We have widespread market interaction by bots, and while they have taken a little bit of a hit lately ? it's more of the nature of a minor ecological shift that will rapidly be overcome once more by the next generation of bots. It is still far more valuable to play bot games than it is to make content. It is still far more valuable to engage in a gambling minigame than it is to make content.
That's not proof of brain. It never has been.
Which is an orthogonal issue, unfortunately.
The upfront issue is that Steemit Inc. couldn't make a solid living even when they had all the advantages of the world in courting content creators with messages which centered on "come make big bucks!" Now the idea is "come pay us big bucks for the opportunity to build your own alt.coin which neither you nor anyone else will actually understand how to tune or make do what you want to to build a Community so that you may can make big bucks!"
There is a deep and painful logical abyss lying right at the middle of that. It would be nice to see more people address it.
how dares he?
Dude, stay insulted but content is needs to be made transactional. Otherwise, you’re philanthropy. In fac5t... you are. And that should insult you so you can come out of your delusion.
Get over it.
Thousands of issues but overestimating the financial traction of creation is definitely among the main ones. Once you actually understand that, then you will be able to start looking for “oh shit, no... we just can’t keep hoping that this cool community with peace and war length novels keep churning out revenue for our beautiful eyes and words. Or proof-of-brain because I am yet to see much brain here. (I only read your first paragraph)
Your words are useless until someone sees value in them. Attacking Steemit Inc for their failure... yeah sure, why not. Don’t forget to read the SMT WP tho.
I agree, when you get down to the value of Steem, if it has any value at all, none of those values relate to the current direction.
Steem has a value in immutability, which is true only for text. This means that authors cannot be muted in the written form, however, de-monetization is still possible on the Steem blockchain via whale flagging, downvote tools/trails.
So, what is the key value? If it is the immutability of text, well, SMTs do not help with that. So, if a team wishes to make their own token they might as well clone Steem rather than make an SMT.
Now, if the value is monetization, or protection from de-monetization an SMT could theoretically work. However, what is the value of that token? Why not just buy a t-shirt from the content producer or look at an ad rather than buy a Joe Rogan Token?
Steem's value as I see it was that it had the potential to be a universal tipping protocol. Like a decentralized patreon where you could upvote or delegate to your favorite folk online. In the concept the value of Steem was its universal-ness, including the universal application of its currency as the primary means of reward. Split that up into thousands of no-name tokens and people are really going to begin not giving a damn.
SMTs can let people do clever stuff, so they should exist. But I expect no big pump due to them.