I was slightly alarmed by the piece published in Vice Magazine as I have a few reservations of my own. Last week I had encouraged several colleagues (all of whom are journalists working in traditional media) to check out Steemit and all declined to join while mentioning several of the reasons raised in the Vice piece. A brief excerpt:
"But as with any new cryptocurrency, there are key questions over stability, sustainability, and underlying motivation. As it stands, the bulk of the site is made up of quickly-written, poorly-researched content, some of which is remunerated into the thousands of dollars. At the same time, critics have raised concerns over both the distribution of the currency and the business model of the platform, questioning the huge sums accrued by early adopters and in some cases alleging a scam dependent on new investment to remain afloat.....a glance at the homepage shows that a lot of popular content tends towards the amateurish and introspective: posts written about Steemit do disproportionately well, leading to an endlessly introspective cycle of content discussing the platform itself; another breakout topic is “introduce yourself,” where high scoring posts tend overwhelmingly to be written by either physically attractive women or professionally successful men."
@stellabelle was interviewed in the piece and provided a bit of a rebuttal but I think the journalist raised some pretty pertinent questions.
Here is the link:
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/steemit-is-like-reddit-but-where-upvotes-equal-a-cryptocurrency-payout
What do others think of some of the points raised in the article?
Very interesting to get this viewpoint... likely many others share similar thoughts and just stay away out of a tradition viewpoint that if something is too good to be true, then it must be. Time will likely equalize many things involving this platform.
Yes, time will tell! In the meantime, I'm enjoying some of the better pieces published on Steemit.