Is steem too good to be true?
A few, since before steem was even something real, have sought to discredit the idea and yell scam, or "sorry, but somebody has to say the truth"
I am all for being skeptical, especially those that promise returns on investment or imply guarantees as such, but it goes equally for those that cast doubt and sow discontent and mistrust, that manipulate and lie, and just as I would be inquisitive of the ones making claims of guaranteed returns, the same critical thoughts will extend to the doom and gloom, this is a scam crowd.
Steem is a ponzi scheme.
Is that true?
To go into detail about the post above would require it's own post, but I invite everyone to click on the article above and take the gist of it, it's 11 months old but it got linked in a post about Steemit Censorship as proof of censorship on steem, along with other posts, which more or less amounted to "censorship, censorship everywhere".
If you have read the post titled Highly Censored and Centralized, it's narrative is that investors will never have as much steem power/influence in the network as Dan or Steem Inc, who can sell it all at once and crash the value of steem, it's a ponzi scheme, it's a scam, BITSHARES!!!
That's a neat story and it's completely possible. How likely?
In retrospect the projects which Dan created, speak of his genius and integrity, not of his lack there of.
It is possible Dan and Ned are just criminal geniuses despite that.
Can Ned(Steemit Inc), or Dan compromise Steem the blockchain?
In context of the token, maybe for a short term, but in respect to the long term such an act would hardly be a bad thing. The platform's value is inherent in the principles and idea behind it, and not derived from the value of its token, the value of its token gets it's value as much from investors as from being tied to the platform.
In context of the platform or the system, such act might cause a fork, yet that will not mean the end of this idea, just a different and hopefully more resilient iteration and two flavors to chose from.
People see the value of decentralized distribution, along with transparency and censorship resilience of the blockchain, and open source development as an organic answer to the question of social media, and that it is paired with a token to encourage content creation and curation only makes it a more valuable service, and because of the role steem the coin plays in such a service, both the coin and the platform will continue to have value. Scarcity makes Steem the only place like Steem.
Steemit Inc, can fork it after they sell every bit of steem they have after powering down, the coin, the token has value not just because people invest capital, but because people recognize the product or service as valuable.
With or without investors people will recognize the resilience of such a platform vs censorship and will always see it as the platform for free speech.
So, if that were the case, steem would still continue on, even after Steemit Inc has left steem.
What is a ponzi scheme in terms of crypto?
The Basics of a Ponzi
A ponzi scheme is one of the few types of fraud which can be run anywhere anytime and can be started off with no investment from the owner. Who says it takes money to make money.
- owner sets up a website advertising 300% or more/less ROI to users who invest in their “plans”.
- Unfortunate victims deposit in the hope of receiving good returns.
- Users get paid with the deposits of others allowing some to say the investments are working
- The extra publicity and praise helps rake in more and more Bitcoins
- When payouts become unsustainable, owner folds and runs with remaining money
- Rinse and repeat at will.
Why Steem cannot be a ponzi scheme
- Doesn't require investors
- Open source decentralized, transparent, tried and tested product
- Can be forked
- Doesn't promise financial returns
If steem was devalued by the actions of a few large stake holders, that doesn't make steem a scam
The other myth that gets tied into this is the rhetoric of steem censorship is real.
"Make the lie Big, make it simple,
keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it"
Adolph Hitler
Censorship,
by function, is the systemic suppression of individuals from speaking their mind or otherwise expressing themselves, and it appears similar in those ends with individuals' natural harsh and vocal reactions to people lying, or spreading ignorance and sowing mistrust, hate, indifference or such things.
People have a right to condemn acts such as deceiving people/lying, just as they have a right to expose scams, or rhetoric eroding credibility and communal trust, people have as much as they have a right to question any and all such acts, because they have the right to speak their mind.
Jeering, and booing at lies, or willful ignorance, at arrogance or at a complete lack of manners or sensibility, and anything to that effect, is generally recognized as a proper and healthy response and an expression of freedom of speech. People are free to express themselves in the middle of your grandstanding, and in spite of the silence to it, and as nobody can force people to listen, nobody can make people stay quiet, so in spite of the fact that it's similar in ends with the act of censorship, its inherently freedom of people to voice their opinions or otherwise their mind, and it doesn't stop anyone from voicing their opinions.
Jeering or booing is the equivalent to flagging content as bad/evil/ignorant/stupid/spam, or as low or even of negative value. Flagging isn't censorship, flagging is curating.
For it to be censorship there needs to be a way to demonstrate that you're suppressed and this needs to be systemic.
You cannot cry censorship because one user voted like that for you, and expect to convince people it's actually censorship, because it only displays a lack of understanding over what happened, or it's a blatant lie.
If it's censorship it would suppress your ability to speak your mind, and as the ones that cry censorship have not demonstrated how that is possible, or have any direct evidence it is happening, it's only a baseless claim.
If you cannot demonstrate that you're suppressed as such, and equate it's suppression simply because people curated content as they saw fit, hardly anyone will consider it censorship and plenty will scoff or shake their heads, and rightly so, as flagging isn't censorship, and because it's fundamentally impossible to have censorship on a open source, decentralized transparent network, and not be able to demonstrate clear censorship, it's a fundamentally flawed argument to begin with.
Curating content doesn't equate to being suppressed no matter how similar it is in ends.
In the end, flagging vs censorship is the equivalent of killing for self defense vs sanctioned murder by the state. One is an appropriate response, the other an unjustifiable wrong, just so, curating bad content as low or of no value is an appropriate response and a person's right to self expression, and since censorship requires a central authority it cannot exist on this platform. Again, it's not censorship to curate content as low quality, and it will never be because curation doesn't affect the content's availability or integrity, and doesn't exclude content from the audience.
Free Speech doesn't come with a guarantee of an approving, supportive audience
When people Curate Spam as low quality, they're not beating or abusing people on the internet, they're curating content.
Does this point need a little more reiterating? It's not bullying people, it's curating people's content, and when people resort to spam and threats and lying, it's a normal response for people to curate such abusive content as low quality. Ultimately, it's our right to curate bad content as low quality, just as much it's our right to speak our mind the other way and curate good content as valuable.
So what, am I not bitching and moaning about people crying and moaning over flags by calling them censorship?
Bitching and moaning about flagging while effectively crying curation is censorship, is not the same as exposing the lie that says censorship is flagging.
Crying censorship when you're flagged is lying, or at least amounts to ignorance or stretching the facts (attacking vs getting flagged, which is close to lying, because it is not representing what happened correctly/accurately).
Even though itself, lying is free speech, some believe that bitching and moaning without proof will give their concerns credibility. Nobody has to put up with fear mongering, or spam, or threats or stupidity, instead they can flag it or better, call such bullshit out, nobody has to respect everyone inherently and expecting respect when none was extended will probably bring disappointing expectations. Lying and deceiving equally has consequences, it's free speech but nobody is free of consequences.
Ultimately, there's no guarantee that spreading fear, uncertainty, mistrust, deception will work or will not be challenged, and such acts have unfavorable consequences.
In the end
It's functionally impossible to censor things on the steem blockchain. On top of that, nobody has the power to ban someone from the platform and the power to edit the data on the blockchain is only in the hands of the author's and all changes are recorded and visible, but more importantly nobody can take that power away just as nobody has the power to exclude anyone from contributing.