Of course they do...they are the early adopters...the ones who took the risk early on when Steemit was far from a sure thing. There was a time, from what I read, back in March of last year, where there was talk that STEEM would not make it. So I have no problem with them profiting handsomely.
As for your question look at this...
On October 26th, Whale and Orcas controled 84%....a bit over 90 days later 82%...now two weeks after that...just shy of 81%...
This will continue as the masses start to join and the reward pool is eaten by newer accounts. The more they post, the less there will be for the Whales due to the sheer volume of people.
I agree that it appears to have the makings of a positive trend. However, I'm not quite as ready to buy into the "early adopter" argument. I have no doubt that many of the Whales got in early and took a big risk when the price of Steem was quite low. And I applaud them for that. However, as I understand it, there is not a strict correlation between "time on Steemit" and "wealth" (as measured by SP). For example, the price of Steem right now is about $4.50. And, as you point out in one of your earlier comments, a Whale needs 500K SP. So if someone was willing (and able), couldn't they just "buy" their way into Whale status and then influence the future direction of Steemit so that they could profit? For example, what if Jamie Dimon of JP Morgan secretly signed up for Steemit and spent $1 million to become a Steemit Whale? As I understand it, there is no correlation between wealth and reputation, either, with some Whales having a lowly 25 reputation, so "time on Steemit" or "time spent getting upvotes" is not a factor. So it's not necessarily the case that "early adopter" status is a necessary or sufficient to become a Whale, right?
Yes someone could buy into Whale status if they were willing to invest $2.2M...if someone put that much into a platform like this, dont you think they deserve such status?
And most Whales were early adopters....few have bought in of late that I know of. Of the few I looked up, all were in mid 2016....
As for the correlation, there is absolutely a huge correlation between time on steemit and wealth AS LONG AS ONE IS ACTIVE. The entire system is based upon contribution to the ecosystem. Those who are here longer, and active, will contribute more. The newer ones have their contributions reflected in their accounts. Over time, as people maintain consistency and put the compounding nature of this blockchain to work, their accounts grow.
And the numbers are showing that. Each time I run this, the lower ranks, Red Fish and Minnows grow. While it might not be fast enough for some, it is altering the landscape (and we are still on the manual sign up system).
Reputation has nothing directly to do with wealth. As one powers down, the wealth decrease but reputation remains the same. By the same token, one with a big accoung who upsets everyone will have a low rep but huge wealth.
Of course, Dimon, if he did invest $2.2M into SP, he best get active on here to get a return. If he isnt, he should just buy that on the open market and hold STEEM. SP is meant to be used to increase the worth of the ecosystem, in turn, generating more wealth for oneself.
I am not sure how long a trend is needed to convince people...this has taken place over the last year plus that I researched it and it continues. Of course, it makes sense...get 1M active daily users on here and the Whales flopping around will be a minor ripple as compared to the tidal wave it causes now.
It may continue to decrease, but watch me calculate the actual USD amount 😁
Steem market cap is 1,123mln. 81% from that amount is $910mln. That amount belongs to the 300 richest steemonians. Which results in just above $3mln per user. To my opinion that is a very nice amount for early adopters. I would say it is time for an ethical discussion about if such high amounts are really fair?
Also knowing that these orcas and whales week easily make a lot more money in the near future.
To my opinion at least some of these millions should be used to attract and hold new users.
Why should it?
STEEM is a system based upon the contribution to the STEEM blockchain. The ones who are in that group contributed greatly...a lot more than any of the newer people.
The truth is what people cannot handle...one's account reflects exactly the worth of what one contributed to this blockchain. People can argue that all they want but the reality is the ones arguing it are those who have not contributed anything. I have yet to see someone with 10,000 posts state that the system is unfair and does not reward content. Never. Yet I see people who have a few hundred or maybe a thousand posts claim that.
You want to have an ethical discussion about a blockchain you are on for less than two months and have contributed 188 posts. Not to be an ass, but come back when you have 5K or 10K posts and tell me if you have the same viewpoint.
What people cannot handle is that STEEM is not broken. Sure there are a few things that need work but the overall system is not unfair. It is true it is not evenly distributed but, the white paper never guaranteed that. It did guarantee rewards for each person who contributes to the blockchain whether it be time or money. And the more time on contributed to this blockchain, the more wealth one builds.
People are too accustomed to hand holding...wanting more handed to them. That is the culture the banksters created...it is one of dependence.
There is nothing to stop someone from posting 20-30 quality comments a day...over 90 days, that will significantly impact ones account positively.
That is why I tell newer people the proper path is commenting....do that and your following will build plus one gets paid for those comments...
That is how one can build an account.
You're not an ass. I really appreciate your honesty.
You have a fair point that the total value of ones account is the result of your accumulated actions and the rewards you received.
At this moment I'm not complaining about steemit. I still have a strong believe in the whole concept. And I think in time I can just earn a little money by posting and commenting.
But besides earning money via posts and comments I think I can also earn money in a few different ways. My background is economic/mathematics. And I think I can come up with some nice tricks. Let's just assume I will be able to come up with something that earns me a lot of money, then my own conscious makes me ask myself if I can live with that?
So perhaps this is just a very personal thing? I guess I should just give it a try to earn some bucks. If it works I can always take some time to think of I will continue earning money with tricks.
I hope this clarifies my earlier post? Feel free for any further discussion!
Make 3 million and try to live in finland, you will be disappointed.
I've heard Finland is expensive. But is it so expensive. I would think that $75k is more then enough to live 1 year. Then $3mln lets you survive for 40 years.
Give me $3mln and I try it myself 😋😜😎
When I was in the constuction site, all those old guys said that you are not going to live rest of your life with few millions. The thing in finland is that right at the moment you try to do something, all the prices just explode. Homes, cars and anything beyond is going to cost you a god-damn fortune.
Based on bnp per head, $75k should really be enough for each year. For that money I think you should be able to cover expenses for a small family, including a car and one per year a holiday.
However I don't live in Finland. Do you?