Putting some thoughts to pixels.
Some folks said HF20 should have been tested for a longer period. Witnesses are be better equipped to judge that statement, nevertheless here's my two cents:
If the testing methodology was a bit flawed to begin with, delaying further would not produce better results. Pushing HF20 into release revealed critical issues and focused the community on finding solutions.
The times when the cryptosphere was a Blue Ocean, a place where one could thrive by simply floating along with the current, have long passed.
Now the place is crowded and the competition is fierce.
The institutional investors are already here, ready to speculate and manipulate.
HF20 is the strong backbone that STEEM needs to survive in this environment. STEEM's natural transaction speed advantage and established community are nice to have, but they are not permanent competitive advantages if STEEM stops evolving.
@eccles, (CC BY-SA 3.0)It's unfortunate that HF20 launched without an in-built market for Resource Credits -- the initial guesstimates of RC values needed adjustment, partially addressed by the patch. But without a transparent RC market the current values, reasonable though they may be, are just another set of guesstimates. The closest solution we have right now seems to be the Minnowbooster SP lease market Full Disclosure: I've not used or tested any of MB's services as of this writing.
Here I'd like to note that my own lack of RCs is a result of my meagre investment and I'm fully cognizant of that fact -- this is not a complaint, rather a suggestion towards further improving the platform's sustainability.
Any comments, corrections and\or complaints on issues mentioned are welcome.
P.S.
I would have liked to add something on the progress or state of SMT's, considering the shift in STEEM's focus, but I've barely began digging into that topic.
