Crowdholding

What do you think of how Steemit governs their tokens?

What do you think of how Steemit governs their tokens?

task

EXPIRED


YUP icon 8000


What do you think of how Steemit governs their tokens?

Rewards

No YUP/tokens awarded

We at Crowdholding, have a fascination of how Steemit governs their token (i.e. monetary policy) seeing both positives and negatives. You can read more about this here from pages 7 to 15: https://steem.io/SteemWhitePaper.pdf
 
Tell us what you think about their policy. In addition, what do you think of you deciding our monetary policy where you vote and co-create the rules?






19 COMMENTS 32 VOTES

Most recent Most voted Most verbose

Hector Ortiz Lopez

Im a goood listener

Im completely confortable with the trajectory that this proyect its taking

4 months ago

to explain this I am very inclined to identify on token. now this is a lot of projects that look good but at the end of the token story is even a scam. to anticipate that many things must be done in a way that is wise and need assertiveness without a doubt in order not to get so big losses in investing.

1 year ago

Well, the community is basically what keeps Steem worth anything, it would sink like a rock without steemit users who they seem to listen to very little or slow, for example website and UI design, solved after 4 months, which is waaaay too much! Also to still keep SBD savings account with 0.01% APR is ridiculous as it won't bring any interest to a holder just make a problem for withdrawing the funds. Also as many users said the account creation process is terribly inefficient as the ability to mine your own acc opening money is terminated, wait times are up to 2 weeks. 2 WEEKS!!! There have been some suggestions from @dragosrua on steemit to make a acc creation token and sell it, but it all comes up to how much is steemit inc interested in improving user experience. P.S. you can find me on steemit as @nirado

1 year ago

In this case, the idea has no perspective. Absolutely not!

1 year ago

Anyone who knows steemit from its early days know how the platform is super centralized in terms of the power and steemit control in general. The token inflation occurs still to the early members. Although these major flaws in the system have made me cringe at Steem and never hold their tokens or use their platform (call me sour grapes guy) but I never liked it.

But that does not take away from their very interesting structure of Steem, SBD, and Steem power structure. The SBD as the pegging token was the most interesting move of all as it gave Steemit users something to measure their steem against. It works as the $$ but the money never leaves steemit platform, therefore the inflation does not really affect them much.

This is what I call as a stroke of genius although started and still continuing to be a really Top heavy distribution of the platform. I like the modeling but I do not like the execution

1 year ago

InSomnius Joe

I solve problems for a living - combining knowledge from many areas of life

This is very true.
Basically people that are late to the game (even one year ago) are still just minor players, unless they got really lucky and the big ones are just getting bigger.
And I don't know how to prevent that from top of my head.

And it's pretty much unslvable right now.

Also, it's a big part of human nature to keep power once you get power. That is probably the biggest problem. How do you solve this? And once you do, you also solve politics and governments.

1 year ago

Yep that is the reality ! Sad but true

1 year ago

I think they have the right instructions with the given tokens

1 year ago

The biggest problem with Steemit is that the way in which they so freely distribute their tokens has the effect of devaluing the token (essentially through inflation), which makes fewer people want to hold the tokens. It basically encourages short term trading, which is the opposite of Crowdholding's goal.

1 year ago

Ethan Clime

CEO of Crowdholding.com

Correct, but it's always good to look at how they do it. In the future we will want users to purchase products in our market place. However, Yupie has long term value, therefore there would be less incentive to purchase products when you will instead want to hold it knowing it will raise in value. We must come up with an idea to also encourage spending. One idea for example, is in the future when you earn YUPs from a task, 50% of YUPs must be spent in one week through investment or buying products or it disappears (reverts back to the yupie pool). This is just an example why in the future we need to look into a monetary policy when our market place is complete. DAO failed because only 5% wanted to use their token, the rest wanted to hold. Therefore the fully decentralized market place didn't work.

1 year ago

I understand the premise -- even if you want to encourage users to purchase products with Yupies, the goal is to build value within the Yupie. Free distribution devalues the token, which makes people less likely to continue to use the platform -- whether they are holding or spending.

1 year ago

Ethan Clime

CEO of Crowdholding.com

Hey Gil, you make a valid point. Still some time to examine this more, but I hear ya. Will be coming back to this down the road while we follow the roadmap, so your advice is well taken. Before work ends, we will be announcing a strategy that we think you will like. So we look forward to your feedback. Cheers.

1 year ago

I dont really think that forcing to reinvest is the right idea. It should be left to the people what to do it. That is a negative reinforcement. You can provide a positive reinforcement like, if they invest within a week, it becomes 1.25x

1 year ago

Ethan Clime

CEO of Crowdholding.com

@Ashley... Duly noted

1 year ago

How come free distribution devalues the token? First of all this so called "free" is not free. It is the distribution for being early adapter. Plus this is a reward for sharing opinions. This is essentially crowdsourcing the brainstorming. Considering it free is wrong.

Secondly, the assumption that free distribution will encourage short term trading is again a false assumption. If the token has inherent value, it will be held well. If it does not then it will not be held and will be dumped. In no way it will be successfully traded short or long term because of the free distribution.
If your assumption was indeed true , all the airdropped tokens will literally be dumped for no value. But there are many of those tokens still doing just fine!

1 year ago

In theory sounded good, in practice doesnt look as good as i hoped/expected. Only mentioning the quality of the posts, looks like its becoming like a facebook picture competition. What i mean is, less and less people focus on their quality of posts and more and more people will do anything to attract followers for the 'likes'. I would have preferred if it had taken a more 'forum-oriented' path rather this 'instagram/twitter-orientation'.

Still, the idea looks pretty decent though, but not sure how it can reach a decent result.

1 year ago

STEEM is almost a perfect example of how to complicate simple things. The reason why they chose such byzantine ways is left for your speculation.

There is no need for either SP or SBD. They could have easily chosen to mark the STEEM that are vested as untradeable and use STEEM for everything SBDs are used for. SBDs are especially funny as they derive their value from STEEM.

STEEM will have difficulties monetizing their business model as they are dependent on people not dumping their STEEM and new users buying STEEM. It serves no other purpuose besides enabling a select few the dream life, getting paid for liking posts and even fewer, writing posts.

They have the right idea about governance though. People who have more skin in the game have more say about how things are done, this should be present in each system as I find it the most important trait. There is a lot to be said about centralization and unfairness of such policy towards the little man, though.

1 year ago

Steem has a bunch of good ideas worth considering. Many ICOs face an immediate drop in value the moment their token becomes tradable, because the selloff by short term investors scares others and leads to a sellout. Finding a way to balance the interests of the community with that of crypto traders by using different models for the short and long term is definitely a step in the right direction.

Personally, I think only you should decide the policies of Crowdholding - design by committee, after all, has a tendency to go horribly wrong. Asking and evaluating community input, however, is a great idea.

1 year ago

I think that the community could eventually vote for the options suggested by the team, but the team would reserve the right to make a final decision, regardless of the vote.

Perhaps as one of the options, vesting for investors on the part of the tokens?

1 year ago