Quote from: smooth on October 24, 2016, 10:41:03 AM

Quote from: iamnotback on October 24, 2016, 10:34:24 AM

That is mostly inapplicable to my point, except that a lack of speculation liquidity can also remove a reason to invest for 1 year while it is only a low. Typically altcoins collapse to a long valley low for a year or so, and then after bottom fishing accumulation they get a pump. But since you can't cash out on a pump, this is entirely impossible for Steem. See edicts can't do just one thing. There is a confluence of negative effects. Clearly you now understand you are incorrect on this.

It is also entirely irrelevant if you read what I wrote which is that you would invest for >1-2 years if you believe the platform to actually have potential to succeed. Not to play a pump after a year of bottom fishing accumulation. As a candidate for a pump, it is a poor investment, but that doesn't necessarily make it a poor investment unconditionally, if it actually works (big if).

Of course it does. Because investment is always about probabilities (and multiple scenarios), not about absolutes. The original argument was whether the inflation has any negative impact on those who lockin. Yes it does, because it removes scenarios which would be opportunities to realize a gain.

Nobody invests with precise knowledge that they only want to cash out precisely with a 1 year weighted average. If you had that precision in investing, then you'd quickly own the entire world.

There is a negative impact on the lockin investor due to inflation. Your imagined orthogonality does not exist.

Quote from: smooth on October 24, 2016, 10:41:03 AM

Quote from: iamnotback on October 24, 2016, 10:34:24 AM

You can't cite anecdotes to prove aggregate effects. If you want a competing anecdote then refer to the Steemit blog where that multimillionaire anti-virus software personality John McAfee said he invests in blockchains but not Steemit because there isn't enough liquidity.

Well I can tell you from my personal experience as like the 10th largest stakeholder or so, that whenever I've powered down I've had NO problem selling the coins (tens of thousands) at close to the market price. The liquidity is perfectly sufficient. This has been true at every price level, before during and after the big July pump.

It is less relevant what you can do with money supply that you mined at fraction of the profit already extracted, than what someone with capital is willing to do to buy into STEEM because we are concerned with investment demand in our current discussion. McAfree was only not primarily referring to the liquidity available for him to cashout 1% a week, rather the fact that he can't cashout 30% in week because he is forced to lock it for a 1 year weighed average cashout.

So $30,000 weekly liquidity on a $300 million market cap is very low. Your statement of "10th" is an exaggeration of effect. You hold afaik at most roughly 1% of the money supply. So more accurately as the 100th percentile stakeholding, you've been able to cash out 1/10,000 of the money supply weekly (and afair you don't cash out every week), because the majority of the rest of the money is not cashing out. If everyone is cashing out weekly, including the Steemit account, then Steem would need 1% of the money supply weekly in liquidity.

Quote from: smooth on October 24, 2016, 10:41:03 AM

I think some people might confuse this because the trading volume and standing orders are relatively small, but this ignores the fact that demand for liquidity is also low (since people can't be selling too many coins at one time). So it just balances out, with a smaller market volume.

It doesn't balance out. There are negative ramifications.

Quote from: smooth on October 24, 2016, 10:41:03 AM

I think what McAfee didn't like is that he wouldn't be allowed to sell (similar to your point about not being able to exit on a pump), but it is hard to say. Possibly he just looked at the exchange volume saw a low number and dismissed it based on that.

I am nearly certain that is what he meant, because I did listen to what he said in the interview.