RE: Steemit, Seinfeld and Success: "Quality Content" and a Show About Nothing
@dollarsandsense, you can have my meager upvote for your very fine rant! I realize that may be cold comfort, but still...
If you look at @jsantana's response below, it's reflective of what a lot of us who got here "early" feel — and have felt — for a while.
Your frustrations and your excellent analogy are well taken, and I don't have a whole lot to add... except maybe this:
I think there was a lot of idealistic notions behind the creation of Steemit, and I think the outcome we're seeing is the result of the simple reality that human nature is everywhere. So how we have this odd dichotomy here... two "factions," if you will... "content creators" and "money harvesters." And they come at doing things here from very different angles.
What you're proposing — making the post payout — is actually an idea that has been floated several times, and has generally landed on the floor with a resounding THUD. The primary argument being that showing earnings and having "transparency" is an essential tool in getting new members to join. I do agree with that — in theory — but looking back across our brief history, it's also increasingly evident that when you promote Steemit to others on the premise of "earning money," then you end up with a bunch of people whose primary objective — tada! — is to earn money.
Well, DUH! Marketing 101...
The wealth distribution issue continues to be an issue, and it is (rightfully!) argued that Steemit needs investors. Sure. Yes, of course! But where the heck did the powers that be get this idea that the only "worthwhile" investors are giant whales, ready to plop down $5Mn to get involved? Why not encourage 10K people to invest $5K each, instead? That would have created a far more equitable distribution.
But that's my own particular hobby horse, and I'll refrain from rolling it out there.
Thanks again for a thoughtful comment!
Your generosity is always greatly appreciated! Although you know I'd still come here even if your upvote were worth the same as mine :)
Now that I'm calmed down from yesterday, I read through your reply and through the other one you reference. I can see what you're talking about quite clearly, and it makes perfect sense. It's really only human nature.
I'm not sure if I've shared one of my favorite phrases with you before in your comments threads, but the concept of "rent-seeking behavior" plays out all over the place in our modern economy (and really in most economies over the years, come to think of it!). I see it's little different on Steemit. The idea, if you're unfamiliar, is that rent-seeking is an attempt to
So this has been around for ages, and I agree it's not surprise to find it here.
Interesting that you say my proposal has been repeatedly presented and shot down. I am pretty new around here (4 months here shortly), so I'm not familiar with much of the history or the "lore" of this place. I will say this, though. As someone signing up this year, the possibility of making large sums of money was actually not what attracted me to the site. I think attracting the right kind of individual is key, but then again, I'm not claiming to be incorruptible. Maybe one day "it" will get to me too and you'll see me cranking out garbage after figuring out a way to profit off it :P But I agree some care has to be made to portray this site for what it is. Only the most naive people think they can jump on YouTube and start making thousands of dollars a month. It needs to be the same here. And I guess you still have the same dynamic even on YouTube, where some of the longest tenured creators are putting out ridiculous content (look up Jake Paul controversy if you want to see what I'm talking about) and they still manage to pull in tons of cash in spite of it. So I guess it's not surprise that the grass isn't any greener elsewhere.
Kudos to you for staying true to yourself and continuing to put out thoughtful and interesting posts each day.