On EOS it's normal for block producers to provide A+ tools, why not here as well?)
EOS block producers are paid in a month what Steem top 20 witnesses are paid in a year (more or less, not sure of the exact numbers). The resource requirements for EOS are higher, but not that much higher.
It is true this depends on the price to an extent. EOS launched with a heavily marketed and promoted ICO (e.g. signs in Times Square) which attracted an enormous amount of capital and helped to create the high price (and also funded the developer team with billions of dollars without ever needing to sell a single EOS). Steem launched with a ninja-mine which has Steemit dumping millions upon millions of Steem constantly for years just to keep their lights on and doing no marketing, killing the price.
Different models, different inputs, different results.
I wish it weren't so, but if we don't get a ton of Steem-growing output in return for all those millions of ninja-mined Steem that have been dumped and likely will continue to be dumped, destroying the price, we're fucked. And unfortunately we have not been getting it. There is no way for the rest of the ecosystem to replace that lost value on the back of 29c STEEM.
Sorry to be blunt. As you say, optimism vs. realism. Hopefully the situation will improve.
this 110%.
Top EOS BP was making $3M/year at one point. Top 20 Steem witnesses make $21K/year. Less than top 20? Then you are looking at $3,000 or less /year now.
Just the way Steemit has to function (selling ninja mined Steem to pay for development) is self-destructive to the price.
That's a bit of a strange comparison. The highest EOS earnings vs the lowest Steem earnings now.
Top 20 Steem witnesses were making $400k/year at one point. Maybe not EOS territory but far from shabby.
They still making almost 700K/year. Still dramatically different than 21K on Steem. Below top 20? The difference is 800% lower at best.
You get more than 21K working at Walmart. Most top 20 are likely spending at least $5,000 a year in hardware, expected to delegate all their SP to communities, host a full node for another $10,000+/year, not power down, pay 35-45% in taxes, and review and write blockchain code. All the while getting paid in a token you can't touch unless you power down.
Okay so 35-1. I didn't know the exact ratio but that's an even wider gap than I thought. Thanks for the numbers.
TOP 20 block producers on EOS are making 700+ per day. Top 21 - 80 are making between 368 to 100 EOS per day. (https://eostracker.io/producers)
Now, putting this in comparison with STEEM, TOP 20 witnesses make around 220+ SP per day. Top 21 to 50 make around 40 to 20 SP per day.
Regardless of the price, that's still much more in terms of pure currency. But since EOS has a 10x higher price to FIAT - the difference is actually much bigger than that.
EOS has 4x higher total supply so that is isn't a direct comparison. In fact accounting for that there isn't much difference (IIRC 1% annual inflation in EOS goes to BPs; in Steem it is 10% of total inflation so around 0.85%).
Still in terms of fiat value its a huge disparity, something like 35-1 which explains the difference in willingness and ability to fund development via that route.
change the market cap of steem to match eos.
then compare the witness vs bp earnings. thats the best way to compare them.
Do you see it as something that can be resolved or is steem fatally flawed?
I'm not sure what to make of that animated gif.
"I'm shocked you said something like that."
you say they dont market... we have a massive community... we won a listing on netcoins... which was fun for a week but hasn't really done much on the demand side of the market.. and we have hundreds of thousands to millions of steem power that is voting and dumping everything they make... there is a lot of selling pressure... we need the price in satoshis to go up up up... around 7000 satoshi is very close to the lifetime low... plus steem was one of the few cryptos that did not go up when the other coins were up over 11%
One week out of almost three years. That demonstrates my point nicely I believe.
That's not ideal certainly but it has always been and will be for some time to come far smaller than the ninja-mined stake getting dumped.
We need Ned & Steemit Inc to go get outside funding and stop selling Steem to fund shit.
That would send the message that they actually care about stakeholders value. Pretty sure the investors are tired of paying for guitars and plane tickets and fake raffles.
And burning Steemit Inc's stake. That would send the right message. But I doubt that would happen.
I guess a hardfork where we force burn it and cut them out of the loop is also an option worth considering.
Speaking of which, where is ned?
No-show-ned? Who know's it's like a where is waldo book at this point.
Him doing the disappearing act he did last Tuesday was complete disrespect.
I will never forget that.
It's not just him disappearing. He may have had some personal issue that kept him away. But someone else from Steemit could have let the community know. They are all responsible for the unprofessional and disrespectful no-show. Or "irresponsible" might be a better way to put it.
It was about respect and also integrity, plus just being an adult and doing what you say you are going to do.
I'll never forget it either.
Burn it or airdrop it to the right people
Let's pretend for a minute we were going to entertain that idea... How does that work? Isn't it theft?
The problem I have with the relationship with SteemIt Inc is there is no accountability. No way to hold a vote of No Confidence. We don't have a board or any influence at all on what they do with their stake.
So, No confidence by fork... How does that work?
In effect, you create a new coin with some balances copied over, some not.
People are free to choose which to support. If there is indeed No Confidence, then very few would want anything to do with the old coin and the new would have a lot more value.
It's a lot like an airdrop. So IMO no it isn't 'theft' (original coins still exist, just not copied over) but it also isn't something to be done lightly. If a community is willing to do it once, then it might be willing to do it again, and that could undermine confidence of future investors. On the other hand, Ethereum hard forked to erase the DAO hacker's stake (or more precisely create a new fork without the DAO hacker's stake; s/he kept it on ETC), and it doesn't seem to have hurt them in practice (setting aside philosophical views on whether it was 'the right thing to do').
I personally wouldn't have any issues with doing it considering how Steemit Inc & Ned have splurged the stakeholder money by not developing RocksDB sooner and paying for high server costs for years.
They didn't pay for their coins so they are basically using the investors as a piggy bank to do whatever the fuck they want. And they have demonstrated their lack of caring by overspending.
SteemFork, would not be listed on the exchanges, would have no name recognition, and a split community along with a split in the apps as well.
How will we know which accounts to fork out? I'm willing to hear more about it, but let's not over simplify it.
it's hard to market a platform that takes 3-4 weeks just to create an account. :P
Except for the crows, almost everyone is quiet. :)
I appreciate your comment, @smooth!
Wouldn't it be a way to increase the output for witnesses, including witness-decay votes? Or is there a big argument against it? Usually, witnesses are a great group of people competing for a top spot, and in thus trying to provide as much value for Steem as possible.
I agree. That's something I've noticed as well. As much as I hope there is still coming something out of it, looking at the transfer history is not a way to increase the mood.
And by the way: https://medium.com/ethglobal/ethglobal-2018-wrap-up-and-looking-ahead-to-2019-d9676e141eca
It could be very difficult to catch up.
Ethereum example is interesting because unlike EOS it didn't launch with billions of dollars of funding and didn't start out with a huge valuation. In fact they went through some rough times and almost ended up needing to largely disband the core organization (though I'm sure people would have continued to work on it) before it really started to take off. What has Ethereum done better than Steem? Obviously the times are different, situations are different, but I still think we can learn some lessons.
I don't know what difference you think witness decay would make in the short term. What share of the witness votes, stake-weighted, are stale in the sense that voter is inactive or doesn't care? Because if the voter is active and does care they will just refresh their votes (almost certainly the case of the larger ones, with a bot, meaning no more human attention will apply than now). IMO it is very low and won't change things much if at all (the largest stake-weighted voters are all active as far as I know).
I do support vote expiration (I don't see a feasible way to implement decay in the consensus logic) but it is more of a longer-term theoretical concern to me (dead voters, etc.) and not something that is going to make a real difference now. In that sense I'd suggest we focus our efforts and resources (limited though they are, relative to other projects, as per other discussion in this thread) on things that matter.
EOS sounds great, where do I sign up?