Apparently, CTime is no longer voting on content unless the author "burns" (destroys) a portion of the rewards. I think it's great that big curators are using their financial influence to create change in the platform. That's within our rights, and it's the way a free market should work. We can throw our votes around in whatever way we want, and that's the way it should be!
I personally won't be using my 1 million+ Voting Power to support content that burns BLURT. I see this as backwards, as well as damaging to the community and platform. I don't want to be a part of it. I will continue to support content that does not burn our currency.
Nor will I be bowing to the pressure, by burning any BLURT in exchange for votes. I see MANY things wrong with that. Yes, I realize this means the loss of my largest supporter, but I'd rather stick to my principles than do something which damages the Blurt platform and currency.
I'm hoping plenty of authors are with me! Feel free to comment below with your opinion on the matter. Will you be deleting some of your own crypto in exchange for votes?
If you decide to take a stand (as I have), let me know, and I'll be sure to consider your content for regular support. I am currently distributing about 800 BLURT in rewards per day. I upvote quality engagement (comments and replies) on my posts, as well as content I find around the blockchain that is interesting, unique, creative, informative, etc.
Consider this: Many people deleting BLURT are doing it to signal their virtue, or follow a trend. Look at me, I'm doing the "in" thing! I was told that it's helpful to burn crypto, and now I'm even getting paid to do it, woooooo! ...... Sad.
Most don't understand the theory (or math) behind it, aside from perhaps "less supply means higher price". Even if that were really how it works, there's a better way to decrease supply of BLURT: decrease the inflation rate!
Inflation
Inflation is built in and controlled. BLURT is constantly being created, and added to our wallets, at a rate determined by the witnesses. It's they who can decrease the inflation rate, in a fair and equitable way. It makes no sense to keep it high, and then ask the platform's users to voluntarily destroy some of their own money!
If we really thought we needed to decrease the number of new BLURT being generated, that's how we could do it easily and fairly. It's the entire reason that setting exists! Instead, we really think the best option is to have users volunteer to turn their tokens in for destruction? And reward those who do, with... more of those tokens?!
Not that "less supply" really necessarily means "higher price". That's a gross oversimplification. Anyway, a few tokens here or there won't have any effect, except on the small holder... it's all about benefiting an inner circle of profiteers, and appeasing the top investors.
Try this: Ask a proponent of "burning crypto" to explain to you, in clear terms, why it's a good idea. You won't get a rational explanation. That's because IT ACTUALLY IS NOT A GOOD IDEA, especially not for you.
At the very least, I hope I've made a few people question this sudden trend. Maybe a few will think about what they're considering, and understand it fully before they do it.
This post is proudly burning 0% of rewards! Everything I earn is powered up, which boosts my personal growth, the content I curate, and the functionality of the blockchain.
DRutter
Ok, I think I will leave the burn... 😜🤙🔥🚫
You have my support either way.... cuz you're speshul! ; D
so basically it is about engagement
one group will burn and other not
and more people will comment ,post, make it about why yes, why no
here and there and we have engagement in the community
keep it simple, clean and dont hurt any feelings
in the end it is all about blurt, or is it?
its friday, windy and rainy
@drutter I agree on your subject . i am here to follow it. none will be burn from my end . inflation only can be control if we stop creating more blurt in the system.
What we actually need is more users, more users to distribute rewards across who can then trade and create market daily volume, with existing users selling and new users buying.
Burning is fine, nothing wrong with it but it just reduces what the the author earns and make them leave Blurt sooner because rewards aren't enough to sustain producing content, it also feels like a sort of tax and anti-freedom.
It was used on Steem back in 2017 when we were all still new to crypto, but now we know you can burn as much as you like but if nobody wants to buy your coin the price won't go up, only users and market reach do that, so an initiative of say voting if you introduce a friend, that will make sense.
if we were to reduce or stop inflation, all rewards would stop or be less, authors wont produce content, witness will down their nodes cause they wont be compensated for running them and the chain will die.
People come to me saying we need exchange listings or we need a new logo (we did that actually) or to burn tokens etc, my reply now is going to be No! we need more users first! did you know that a new user came from hive called @holovision and only people from the Blurt Core team welcomed him? we should start with the basics, increase user welcome, support and engagement, and that doesnt fall on Blurt Core, the community needs to step up and actually be a community.
Edit: Our team just informed me that only author rewards are subject to burn, so the author gets less while the curator earns the same as voting a non-burn post, so the curator grows in power faster than the authors.
you are very right in what you say regarding support and token burning, especially since blurt already has a built-in token burning system for use which, as I have always emphasized, is a groundbreaking approach to the matter compared to the predecessors of our blockchain.
I disagree about the logo and branding because I believe that whether we have users depends on the appearance of our platform. People today judge 70% with their eyes. and only secondly do they try to learn about the functionality and advantages of the product. Good branding is needed here to create a good, catchy advertisement, and a good, catchy advertisement draws attention and encourages people to get to know the product better. And finally, at this stage, a lot depends on whether the product is really good or not. We are still improving the product, but unfortunately, in my opinion, the branding is not quite going in the direction it should be and, above all, the appearance itself is lagging behind.
New users also do not solve the problem of inflation. Inflation imposes the need for continuous development, but individuals in the inflation system constantly feel unsatisfied and finally get tired of this system, seeing that it is a horse race against a modern car, and they change their approach.
This is the moment when the platform loses users. Because they are trying to look for other ways to stand out.
For centuries, people have naturally been looking for a situation in which something can minimize their efforts and the amount of work they put in, and they are willing to put in incredible efforts and risk their lives for a situation that will set them up for the future in such a way that they will not have to make any more efforts to survive.
So they are trying to create something that will pay off for the rest of their lives. Hence the entire development of civilization.
The inflation system is the opposite of this state of affairs. Therefore, inflation can only stimulate the state of excessive stagnation and not establish it as the norm.
A strong inflationary trend leads to a lot of fakery, cheapness and mediocrity because people, knowing that the money they work for is not worth much and loses its value over time, do not try to do what they do. They want to hit posts as quickly as possible and grab a few tokens and then escape to more stable and reliable currencies such as BTC or ETH
In our case, this leads to shitposts and spam, and then the token value drops.
Basically, in the case of our platform, the situation should be as follows:
the more users, the greater the money supply, but the supply itself should always be slightly higher than the increase so as to always keep the blurt price on the verge of deflation and inflation, with moments of strong deflation during the best economic times.
This approach would make the token price more stable and upward, and the token itself would have the features of digital gold and be attractive to investors and creators.
It would also motivate creators to create better content. Because, on the one hand, a small supply would mean a greater difficulty in obtaining the token and, on the other hand, the value for good original content would increase over time. For me, the only thing missing would be a reward system and good content after monetization. But I already have an idea on how to solve it, but it requires a bit of refinement on my part before I present it.
Thanks for your reply, quick reminder that inflation reduces by 0.5% each year, I think we started at 10% and we are at 8.62% now, so inflation is reducing and users transacting burn Blurt with fees, the daily rewards pool is the same so the more users we have commenting and posting and voting the more Blurt is burned.
Regarding the logo, we didn’t feel a corporate look was suitable, we also wanted to keep similarity ro the current logo to please users that did not want to change it, the logo is legacy much like bitcoin’s logo is its legacy, so freshening it up was a compromise, but still millionaire Alex Hermozi said in one of his videos the least effective thing you can do is apend effort changing your logo when you need to desperately grow your business, any number of things would be more effective.
Luckily it only took a few days and was quite a fun experience, and everyone involved is quite pleased with the result, a post will be out sometime with the brand kit and methodology around the design.
WEFgtptshit.png
Never trust a WEF NWO controlled hacker . ;-)
Lol I’m certainly not powerful or connected enough to even be on WEF radar, just an ordinary builder ser.
Yeah , what ever ,. have a song from me .
I know what know ,.. ;-)
How comes you didn't welcome him with a blurtbooster vote? White list only votes is a stupid policy. Give votes to everyone and then look after them. If you find spam or plagiarism, then add users to blacklist
Do you remember the time when I voted on every post? It brought tons of new users, many spammers and many good folks who are here till today.
Vote on everything. This is the only way to get and keep new users here.
Well said - the 'whitelist' is really a blacklist...
Let's change 'whitelist' to 'inclusive list' and everything will be clear
or....'whitelist' to 'go along to get along, corner' !.....the option are endless! lol
Hi, thank you for your reply and suggestion. I don’t oversee the Blurtbooster votes myself, the code was designed by @saboin and has oversight by a team he put together. I have tagged him here incase he wishes to clarify its mechanics or make any adjustments he deems to be a good idea.
I’m starting to understand you more, I believe you do have an interest in seeing Blurt succeed but maybe have different ideas on how to achieve that. I think however, our goals are aligned for growing Blurt.
I agree that votes and engagement are necessary, but I also don’t think a bot vote makes up for organic human votes, the real value comes in when many users comment and vote on posts of new and existing authors, attention is addictive, you don’t get the same dopamine from a bot votes or replies in an automated fashion, as when real people validate you and your content personally.
I have asked @outofthematrix to look into some general research on a user acquisition and experience funnel.
I think what must happen is that a sales funnel type software should be operated by a dedicated user experience team, the user is welcomed and guided to join a Newbie community, then we as a whole support and nurture the Newbie community with real human touch interest and engagement and accompanying votes according to merit.
Once this funnel is perfected we can do targetted ads on other socials like facebook, and even hold events on Eventbrite to teach people about the world of crypto with Blurt as the gateway. We basically need a gradual user experience journey from Web2 to Web3 with training, positive reinforcement and support along the way.
I also want to present some HF ideas for you to read over, please afford us some time on that, @khrom may have mentioned to you about some of it.
Anyway, thanks for the constructive comment, hopefully this marks the start of cordial conversations between us for the betterment of Blurt.
I don't even have a discord account (or any other social media) to contact him. It would be nice if hf ideas were published on Blurt
No problem you can tag @saboin anytime on Blurt or comment on one of his posts or comments like you did me.
Yes the final draft will be on Blurt for your consideration, here you can decide which items you are happy to support, but while fleshing it out will need input from team and witnesses, so may have to be a group effort in Discord first before goes to chain.
I just wanted to add something, I think it is great you were voting every user, you have, however more freedom to vote any content because you aren’t a core team representing Blurt. Imagine for example the Blurt Core bot votes every post and lands up voting hate speech, murder or child porn, we can unvote but our votes would have forever touched that content and author, so because of the position we are in we will get a lot of kickback and hate if we vote on low value or bad content, in many respects you have more freedoms to blanket vote all content.
Perhaps however there is a sweet spot in the middle we are yet to discover.
Yes, add a comment under each upvoted post:
this post has received automatic upvote from Blurt Core, if you see plagiarism, spam, blah, blah, blah please report it on discord or mentionl this account @blah under this post, we will remove upvote and blacklist author
Thanks for the suggestion, the idea of a comment under each post gave an idea to comment under each new author’s post and welcome them and let them know they will be eligible for blurtbooster votes in a X days if their content is suitable. This also creates something to aspire and build up to and a reason to keep developing ones blog for higher rewards to come.
As an active promoter of this platform and having onboarded hundred of new users, i agree with your statement we should increase user welcome and engagement but what i mostly observed even with a good welcoming support from the community, they won't continue to use the platform if they dont get high upvote value. A good vote value perhaps from the Blurt Core to all new users would some how make a difference and inspire them to remain.
Lovely to see you back onchain! 🙏🍀
@megadrive Sir we are user and As user of blurt ecosystem , wish always best . Hope we chase Hive blockchain and atleast make Blurt more transparent and well managed .
Thanks for your thoughts, and some background info on the topic.
You're very right that our token price is more about demand than supply. Anyone can invent a token and burn a trillion of them... doesn't mean it has any value. You need demand, which generally means some kind of functionality/use. Blurt has the functionality, and will continue to add more real-world uses, so demand should continue to increase.
True, there's nothing wrong with burning... having the option to do so is great. Options are power (as long as they don't come with any drawbacks, costs, etc).
But I think a lot of people are currently being duped into believing it's some sort of fix for the low token price, and this is causing many people to make decisions like burning a good portion of their funds. And as I said, there are better options if we really want to reduce the number of BLURT in circulation. Reducing inflation too low is just as bad as having it run too high, but it's still a very valuable tool in managing the amount of tokens floating around (and ending up on exchanges).
It's not fair to say "only people from the Blurt Core team welcomed him". Perhaps some of those people were the first to welcome him, and they should get credit for their discovery, but you're trying to say the community isn't a real community because of that, and that's just not the case.
I can't burn blurt for me. Thanks for writing about this. Most people do not understand the system and can do anything to get vote not understanding indirectly hurting the system. I believe I have content to write on today to argue more about my view Why burning blurt isn't the right approach.
Next year seems like it could be a big year for a lot of crypto. It would be sad if Blurt misses out because of community divisions. I really have nothing against burn posts if that's what the author really wants, they can choose any benefactor. I thought it was a little wierd to support only burn posts. Although I am glad to see people exercise freedom to use the token and express themself, I can see that some are still influenced purely by opportunity for an upvote. That's also their choice, but I'd rather see Blurt grow in other ways.
Like I said in the post, I think it's good people use their curation as a way to enact change. Broadcasting your intent to vote on particular subjects, or on authors from particular parts of the world, or even on authors who do (or don't) burn their rewards, is fair game.
You're right, community division isn't good. But one side has formed up... and I can't possibly join them, so I'm taking an opposition position. Hopefully things will be able to settle down into a sustainable and healthy pattern.
Two days ago, I was talking with a friend about this strategy that is also being applied on Steemit.
The "burning" of currencies, as you say, does not mean high prices. I think that, in the end, the author is harmed by stopping receiving coins to incorporate them into his possession.
I can participate in the lighting that ctime promotes, but not in burning my profits in exchange for a vote.
Burning tokens is commonplace, so I view it positively, but I don't often engage with that strategy on different platforms, especially Blurt, Steem, and Hive. My focus is to build my Blurt holdings—I want more Blurt, for me, not less of them. I won't be participating in burning Blurt. If people want a secure location where Blurt won't just be dumped—give it to me. My claim is just as valid as those who support burning tokens for possible stability and low selling pressure within the market.
Deflationary Measures
Now, in fairness, I see it as a possible way to slow inflation. The people who participate in it are sacrificing the current value of their tokens on the assumption that it may benefit the community in one way, or it could be frivolity—for fun. They are free to do so. In some ways, drastic deflationary measures may kick up enthusiasm for the coin, maybe having a positive effect on the market. Yet, I agree that cutting supply doesn't always translate to higher value. Scarcity, supply, and demand are finicky—market dynamics are complex.
Somewhat irrelevant, but some cryptocurrencies use a proof-of-burn consensus algorithm—they are incentivized to burn tokens to get more tokens as they approve blocks.
On-Chain Activism vs. the Code
The people who incentivize others to burn tokens shouldn't be inherently seen negatively. It can be the equivalent of activism from CTime or other creators who do programs that may be on the verge of breaking etiquette—people getting paid to delegate.
It's also important to remember that CTime can do this because the developers also allowed for there to be an option to burn tokens. By burning tokens and using his influence, as intended by the blockchain code, he can be creative in whatever cause he's trying to support. Declining payouts entirely is also a part of the chain.
Etiquette and Activism
As you stated in your first comments, it is positive that CTime is using its financial influence to influence the platform. I agree. It's hard to discern whether or not this specific social activism will have the intended effect of benefitting the economy, assuming that's the intended effect—I don't think this should be seen negatively.
If there are people who would like to throw their penny in the wishing well, then I wish them well. If people want to incentivize others to take some faith in uncertainty, I wish them well but hope they remain vigilant. We are all riding this uncertain crypto experiment, and so far, things are going well.
Note:
I think a better option to help the token's value is increasing demand, not decreasing supply. Smaller creators shouldn't be participating in this as it could hurt their growth than if they published their content normally—Smaller creators are taking a gamble here.
I once read someone's post here some time ago, he told his disappointment indirectly, where he mentioned that he experienced a drastic decline in asset value, he brought hive tokens for powerup to blurt for $ 4000 and I don't know the rest of the story, and that's definitely a sad story.
but in this super magnificent month of November we only light a bonfire to provide new colors, new enthusiasm or whatever is fun, we can only laugh, someone who is experiencing sadness thinks our bonfire is useless.. LMAO
Someone like CTime could 'burn' tens of millions of tokens in a moment. Far more than all other accounts have burned, put together. If they really think "less BLURT means higher prices", then why don't they do it? I suppose it's because they don't feel they should have to shoulder the burden themselves, and that everyone should do it, thus encouraging the community to burn their own tokens. But if we want everyone to equally contribute to raising the price of BLURT tokens, by decreasing the amount in circulation, why don't we just cut back a little on the rate of inflation?
Thanks for your intelligent comment. I agree that increasing demand will have a far bigger impact on BLURT's health than decreasing supply. After all, there are cryptos out there with almost zero total supply, but completely worthless because they have no use and therefore no demand. Something has to be desirable as well as limited in order to have value. We could burn this platform down until there are only a handful of tokens remaining... doesn't mean those left holding them will be millionaires.
I agree—they could easily send their coins to null if they wanted to and publicize it as taking a stand. I'll attempt to refrain from assuming—speculating on their reasons for not doing so might foster unwarranted ill will. However, you do bring up a valid point.
That could be a worthwhile solution, but that will require a soft fork and consensus between witnesses. Ignoring the concerns regarding self-sending to null, I believe that taking the initiative by utilizing the blockchain's current features is probably a fair course of action. We KNOW how defensive some people may get over code changes. If people were seriously advocating for code changes, that would translate to higher instances of drama and distrust.
Idealistically, I would prefer to increase the interest rate of Blurt to have it be closer to around 4-6% a year to be just as competitive as Hive (3% + 20% HBD) and Steem (~2.9%). Blurt's 2.2% is low, in my opinion. As US savings rates are increasing and going to compete directly against Blurt, Hive, and other staking coins with low interest/rewards, Blurt will be less competitive over time.
Now, I don't believe the devs would ever change the policies to fit my idealistic opinion; it is still reasonable to ponder.
I agree with the rest. More tokens = more accessibility—more room to use the tokens as a tipping currency or possibly to purchase goods and services in a small community.
Ohhhhh, I was under the impression the interest rate could be adjusted by anyone with access to the admin control panel. Witness consensus might be too much to ask. I've already seen Mega basically pooping on the idea, so that's not promising (although he doesn't own/influence all the witnesses).
"Blurt's 2.2% is low, in my opinion."
Maybe it's fine where it is, then. Perhaps the reason BLURT's price is low isn't an overabundance of tokens, it's a lack of demand. I've long said that demand will rise (and any tokens sitting around for cheap on exchanges will be snapped up) once the crypto bull returns. That's supposedly 2024 and 2025, if the old pattern continues. We have a token, we have a community, we have a blog platform, and we have other infrastructure. I think there's a good chance we'll do well over the next year or two.
To be clear, I will vote on people's content if I like their content, but I don't see myself declining rewards or setting my beneficiary rewards to burn.
These measures adopted by witnesses who to a certain extent have control of the platform without adequate development and explanation, I do not believe they lead to anything.
In reality they only contribute to increasing the speculative power that cryptocurrencies have.
I think that many curators should be reminded that cryptocurrencies were created apart from promoting international exchange to eliminate the risks of inflation in many countries of the so-called Third World.
As @megadrive says, the value of a product (in this case the Blurt token) will be given by the game between supply and demand. It was always like this and from Keynes to the present day all economic theories, with slight nuances, have interpreted it in the same way.
If you think that voluntarily burning BLURT destroys this Blockchain then you are wrong. By canceling my all buy orders on exchanges I could show you what Blurt's problem is but I don't want to do it because the price would drop below the "shut down" level which is about $0.0025
Anyway, I recently did such experiment. I didn't buy even 1 BLURT for 4 months
I can't say you are not, but what you illustrated in this comment isn't inherent to whether the burn policy is correct or not. It only has one common effect, which is to influence the price of BLURT.
There is a problem in the burn policy: the increase of the price obtained in this way is an artificial increase and not due to a major use of the Blurt ecosystem. The higher price will be a deterrent for those who want to join and use Blurt ecosystem (since the fees will be increased in terms of local currency).
Personally, I agree with burning a part of Blurt (or even being able to give it up) only for the active whales of the platform, in the perspective of buffer the Growth-Time Curve (the more BLURT tokens an active user owns, the more its BLURT tokens will increase compared to a user with a smaller balance).
So, it is not wrong or correct, it is a choice. In an ecosystem with still too limited use, the benefits for those inside the system are greater, because it allows them to have a higher price at which they can sell their tokens; at the same time, it is instead a greater cost (and therefore a disincentive) for those who want to approach this ecosystem.
A useful mechanism to overcome this problem would be to launch an account that acts as a "not-complete-burn account": which collects funds in the same way as a burn one, but which distributes the funds as an incentive to newcomers, paying the registration fee at the time of registration and sending small amounts of BLURT weekly, so that you can pay for transactions until you have reached sufficient power to continue independently.
If I have time, I will try to launch an experiment like this in the next few weeks. It would be useful to combine the need to increase the price of BLURT and the need to have a smaller allocation of tokens that can be sold on the market.
this is blurtbooster
I don't know, in my experience blurtbooster completes boost of the posts through curation. From its blog account, it doesn't release a proper communication about other services. Only in the description talks about creating account. The "not-complete burn account" I talked about - eventually - will be a distributor of small amount of Blurt to post in the first times of the life on Blurt, only that. For example, 10 Blurt weekly to users who are in the first stages of their life here, and with less of 10-15 BLURT in the wallet, up to a 200-300-400 BP. It could be a second way to help a user beginning here, not more. In the end, if it will stop its operation, I will lock the amount held in it, deleting the private keys.
soon he (@drutter) will light a bonfire to warm his body during November ☺️☺️
I'd love a November bonfire, but it's doubtful.
everyone is free to do whatever they feel comfortable and happy with, just as we will never touch drugs & alcohol because these two products will damage our nerves.
If today you believe that accumulating lots of blurts will make you a millionaire and surpass Michael Saylor then do it, but if views start to change then invite everyone to light a fire so that your tokens remain valuable and don't turn into trash.
once in a while you might need to look at "YFFII" what Castro has been up to, every day he prints his damn tokens and in the end all the investors are homeless, so reducing the blurt supply by burning makes sense.
I agree. It's a risk to the participants, but it isn't always negative.
You, sir, are the market maker. If large market makers who bid pull from their positions, deflationary measures might be necessary.
Soon, I'll be making proper positions instead of a few quarters now and again. Hive is where I trade and provide chump change liquidity, but I am slowly expanding.
"If you think that voluntarily burning BLURT destroys this Blockchain then you are wrong"
Correct.
Perhaps the fight of some witnesses is no longer to win more but for power on the platform.
Aren't you doing the same thing as someone who promotes burning part of their profits to receive a curation vote?
I understand that you are saying in a few words: "he who does not burn part of his profits (Blurt) will receive my vote."
That's right, I'm doing the same thing. Like I said in the opening paragraph, "I think it's great that big curators are using their financial influence to create change in the platform. That's within our rights, and it's the way a free market should work. We can throw our votes around in whatever way we want, and that's the way it should be!"
Re🤬eD
🥓
I have a whole in my backyard
connexted to my toilet 🥓
yeah, but what about the soldier hole ?
my father worked two jobs so he would have money to put in the money hole, and he never complained !!!!!!!
I love blurt blog
I hope our bonfire doesn't burn your grass, happy weekend
Not to worry! It's misguided, but thankfully not likely to have any meaningful effect.
Hi @drutter, great news! Your content was selected by curators @nalexadre, @ten-years-before to receive a special curation from BeBlurt 🎉 Don't hesitate to upvote this comment as the curators will receive 80% of the rewards for their involvement.
You can support us by voting for our witness, our decentralized funding proposal, or through delegation. You're also welcome to join our Discord server 👉 https://discord.beblurt.com
Congratulations, your post has been curated by @dsc-r2cornell. You can use the tag #R2cornell. Also, find us on Discord
Felicitaciones, su publicación ha sido votada por @ dsc-r2cornell. Puedes usar el tag #R2cornell. También, nos puedes encontrar en Discord
Congratulations! 🏆
You have recieved a coconutty upvote! 🥥
Thank you for contributing to the Blurt Blockchain!
Keep up the great work!
Curated by @outofthematrix!