Many thanks @wingz for your comments. The interaction and discussion is the stuff of solution and that is the goal for all with a care for this wonderful idea! Respect to you.
I am not quite clear as to your comment about Facebook or Google - I have heard it said many times that steemit seeks not to follow the trend of these two giants who profit off their subscribers, yet that is exactly what the power holders of steemit are doing.
The revenue is derived as I understand it via the blockchain and distributed to the holders of the SP, hence the numbers and the value. The distribution is stacked at leverage ratios of enormous proportion. I get leverage and I get investment - even mining but the initial rewards seem to have caused an imbalance which by its very nature is self-defeating. Hence, steem value today!
I hope that these words clarify your remarks to me, and the one question. If not, I am at your disposal to discuss further. Namaste!
If initial investors are paid off with the investments of further investors then the scheme is a Ponzi scheme.
Facebook etc, gave everything away for free, gained a network effect and then monetised with ads.
Technically the steem 'token' is derived from the blockchain. It's printed from nothing but the value does not come from nothing. It comes from investors betting on the network effect of Steem.
...And hoping on some kind of revenue in the future..
So basically, Steemit needs to find revenue other than new investors otherwise it's a Ponzi.
Sorry...I'll also add
Also you're right about the initial distribution. Far too top heavy and biased to large stakeholders that issues of 'fairness' are rightfully amplified to the extreme.
I could not agree more ... the value of steem, as it stands can only be based upon a valuation of steemit and a 'discounted for time' potential. The performance of steemit is therefore behind the valuation of steem and the responsibility of that performance is currently held to the tune of 80% by less than 100 people and 90% by less than 400 people.
The negation of this is to call black white!!
Curation, downvoting, UI - it does not terribly matter. What does matter is recognition of this simple truth, admission and a redirection based upon fairness. Otherwise, it will be a sad tale of Greed thwarting a wonderful concept.
Much as I think that @timcliff is doing an admirable job, I don't believe that it will be sufficiently radical to repair the holes in the hull.
The slowness to action displays a thorough misunderstanding of the status quo. Steem, right now should be trading at 4 cents, based upon what you and I have agreed.
I by no means think we should agree on all aspects to the same degree, nor would I try to persuade you.
I mean, the issue with Steemit is that it, in hindsight could be seen as a flop or as an incredible evolution of value that was bootstrapped from nothing. If development stopped here it would be the former. If we can take a few steps to Dan's vision... a few months back... of Steemit as the tip of the iceberg... Then we have the latter.
It's a juggling act. Why re arrange the deckchairs? When you can build the boat?
Dan and Ned have the vision but the majority of the whales seem to be in that desperately long river in Africa.