Quote from: iamnotback on July 15, 2016, 01:21:51 AM

Quote from: smooth on July 15, 2016, 01:15:19 AM

Quote from: iamnotback on July 15, 2016, 12:56:24 AM

Also I think you could help by speaking frankly about the meritocracy of the fact that you could get $50,000 a week for basically a very minimal effort. You could perhaps influence some speculators and newbies to think carefully about what types of projects they want to support. Without being too dogmatic, just about the value of meritocracy.

The irony is, the more I would talk about this, the more harm it would do. Like pro ball players visiting schools and telling kids to study in school and not plan on being pro ball players. The effect is very likely the opposite. Yeah, I was clever and somewhat lucky (though the paper value of this asset doesn't really mean much, so I wouldn't overstate things). Doesn't mean others should try to do the same, but we all know they will.

I don't think it is entirely a premeditated pyramid, I think they actually believe they can establish a large network effect by bringing a very large number of people into the crypto ecosystem in a way that nothing else ever has (in fact it has already achieved a significant percentage of this, and reached demographics previously entirely unreached). The post rewards will likely fall, as we agreed earlier, but paying a fraction of the market cap as a pool for new content does indeed scale both up and down. If the rewards get too small and people stop posting then rewards per post will increase. It is self correcting, as long as there is enough network effect for people to want to remain part of the system at all, thereby supporting the market cap, which is a very uncertain prospect, but not implausible.

I had already argued to you (and CoinHoarder) in the other thread that the equilibrium is more likely to settle on those who are willing to blog for the least amount of $, i.e. on very low quality blogging. Or a few number of blog posts getting very high payouts and the rest getting nearly nothing. Either way a very low quality content site result.

One salient factor is there is no incentive to hold SP thus the few people with voting power will eventually get tired of curating. It is entirely the wrong economic model to disincentivize curating by forcing people to lockup their tokens for 2 years in order to participate in the very small curator rewards (up to 3.875% per annum of you SP holding on average).

I don't disagree there are issues with the model, even big ones, but that doesn't guarantee failure. The model can be changed. Other factors may turn out to me more important. The world doesn't work like, "Oh, found a flaw, it's over!"

The way I see it, all this is out in the open, no one is being misled. People can do their own analysis and reach their own conclusions.