I’m sure those who hold a lot of Steem think about this a lot. In other words, the blockchain today in my opinion lacks the ability to attract bigger investors and early adopters. But does this mean that the blockchain itself is not ready for the next step? Or could it have less to do with technology and more to do with the consensus of the community.
I ask these questions because it seems to be that even on that subject, the points of view are very different. The polarized position on bidbots is a common point of disagreement, but there are plenty more that keep the community at odds. In other words, even among big holders of Steem power, the way to move forward is not entirely clear.
This might seem like I’m being negative about this, but I promise this is not the case at all. I’m trying to be objective about the things I see. It’s also important to point out that I’m talking more about Steem the currency, and not so much about Steemit the platform, and this difference is important for the points I’m trying to make.
As it pertains to technology
The Steem blockchain might be unmatched at the moment. What other currencies have three second fee less transactions, and enjoy the privilege of a blockchain who does not struggle much, even on the highest traffic days? In this sense it’s easy to admit that aside all the challenges it may face, it stands out from thousands of other projects who might enjoy a higher valuation but lack any usable implementation.
Our Steem currency also has something very valuable in the way of development. Given the fact that not all development is handled by Steemit Inc, but a considerable amount of work is done by witnesses and other independent efforts. This is also not common among other currencies, and curiously enough it should be.
The ideas proposed this year, the possibility of SMT’s might be the way Steem can effectively attract investors by creating a separation wall between the challenges that Steemit currently faces and the platforms that these new tokens could facilitate. If that means that Steemit the website will lose some attention remains to be seen, but it’s possible that outcome is actually desirable.
Because it’s still early
I find Steem to be an incredible opportunity for those who can clearly see it’s true potential. A simple yet important rule of investments is that participating on an investment once it has succeeded, is a sure way of missing out on incredible gains.
I say that only to say that I’m completely aware and Ok with the fact that Steemit itself was never meant to be a final product of any sort. At least the things I’ve read some witnesses and prominent members of Steem share on the subject matter make this message clear to me. The idea of Steemit was possibly an implementation of possibilities and nothing more.
Does this mean that blogging won’t mean much in the future? I doubt it. I think blogging will always have a place, but what I’m starting to imagine is that when it takes off and becomes a global phenomenon, the center of attention might not be steemit, but something else entirely built on top of the same blockchain.
Attracting Investors
Has to be connected to the idea of presenting the possibilities of the blockchain itself and a lot less connected with the blogging platform called Steemit. At least this seems to me the best way to describe my position on this matter.
As someone who is invested on Steem, I must admit that the potential of the blockchain itself has not been truly exploited, and I mean that in a positive way of course. To believe that Steem should be only a blogging platform is to think small, to lack the needed imagination.
Now, this conversation if there is one to be had, should probably be held by some of the bigger investors who are currently holding the Steem token. In other words, the ones who stand to win the most if the right choices are made should be the ones who collectively agree on ways that this blockchain could attract other potential investors.
In this sense the Steem blockchain could effectively become fertile ground for Entrepreneurs and business of all sizes, including charities and non-profit organizations.
Passive investors
Also need to play a role on the solution. It’s not completely realistic to think that everyone can write or that they would want to become bloggers. I think that expectation is also hurting the valuation of Steem. I think that it’s exactly because of this reason that bidbots even became a thing at all. A healthy economic system should be able to accommodate many different types of investors, and saying that should not be something that should make anyone uncomfortable.
I’ve read a few Steemians say that curation rewards should be enough for them. But I’m inclined to say that those who hold that position, also don’t have the Steem Power to put themselves on the shoes of someone who has invested in those quantities. That lack of perspective might be the reason why that particular aspect of the conversation seems to go nowhere.
Maybe the code should change
I’m not entirely sure about it myself. But after reading some of the proposed ideas being shared by other investors, I have to admit they make a lot of sense to me. One thing to consider though is if the creation of SMT’s could implement some of those solutions, therefore making those changes not as relevant on Steem, but that remains to be seen.
I am of the opinion though that the main focus of Steem investors at the moment should be to support initiatives that would encourage other investments to buy into the token, since the market today seems to be only in the direction of vote-selling, the possible solution would be to design a product that could be just as effective, but less polemical.
The one thing that is no doubt needed is the willingness of people to have this particular conversation. Because if that’s not possible, then the things we want to see just won’t happen. In any case I remain positive about Steem, and will keep on looking forward to the coming days ahead.
Sincerely
