I don't see retention as the main pressing issue at the moment. As long as they don't lose their keys everything is fine. And if they do they'll need a new account eventually.
Steem is not a Facebook with a need for strategies to addict users so they see as many ads as possible. With enough use cases around user engagement will naturally rise - not on steemit.com, but all over the web.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
You are right, Steemit is not Facebook. at least Facebook managed to hold out and not monetize for years. Steemit on the other hand has a bunch of witnesses running bidbots and have monetized way to early. It is not about strategies to addict users, but strategies to ensure the wealth stays with a few hungry boys. Do you not think investors have long term strategies? Steemit needs a continuous flow of investors, not speculator. So far the crypto market is full of speculators and steems strength is based on that. But the market is going to change. I hope its not to late to change the mindset of steem witnesses then.
Anything that needs a continuous flow of investors is pretty much a ponzi scheme. And you're right, market conditions unrelated to how things are going here are pushing the prices up on the open markets. I cannot fault anyone who tries to profit off of this scheme under current market conditions. It's not a guarantee that STEEM and SBD will remain this high, and if the prices are high through no one on this website's actions then it only makes sense to exploit the limited time window that is presumably available to them.
I understand what you're saying in that big changes to how things operate around here are needed for steemit to remain relevant when prices crater. Sadly I don't think anyone who is profiting massively from this all right now is, even if they are aware of better ways to go about things in the future, going to cut their own legs from under them in the present, because it may well be the better option to shore up capital while you can and worry about how you can revive genuine interest in the platform later, especially if there aren't many real repercussions to doing so.
The main damage was done in creating a blockchain where stake determines everything, and then doling that stake out to a handful of people you know will back the same opinions. Everything else is just fallout from that initial shockwave of bad decision-making.
Seems like a pretty short sighted view, throwing together all those different groups in the last two posts. The top witnesses represent a small fraction of the top stakeholders, and not all do even belong to both groups.
As it's impossible to draw a sharp line between investing and speculation. Those are moral terms, not factual.
And there's quite a lot of devs working on community projects...
I guess i'm frustrated with both sides. To be a top witness you need votes from the top whales (of the ones that vote)