Recently, there has been an uproar over Ctime's proposal for curation in exchange for burning tokens. In my opinion, completely unnecessary.
Voices were raised that this is no support for the platform and it is harmful because it would be more helpful if the authors saw reasonable rates for their entries, moreover, according to some, burning tokens does not have a direct impact on the price.
So, first of all, it is worth recalling that:
Ctime, like each of us here, is an independent holder of tokens who acquired them through an exchange and can make decisions about what he does with them and how he uses them in a way that suits him and which he considers beneficial for himself and/or the platform.
It is important to understand the "and/or" in the previous sentence because, of course, it does not necessarily have to be guided by the good of the platform.
In my opinion, is he guided by it?
The answer is ambiguous and difficult to force into a simple yes or no.
First of all, burning tokens will always have a positive impact on the token price, but we will not always see the effects of these moves in the short-term settlement. Especially then, when other factors makeing price go down. Even then still they slowing process of colapsing but ofcours just few people see that then.
Is important always remember that price is always the result of supply and demand.
Although there are many more factors that influence supply and demand, ultimately one of the most important is the buyer's belief whether a given item is worth buying and the rarity of a given currency. And seller belief in value of his wallet.
Burning, of course, means that there are fewer Blurts, so sellers do not resell them at a low price, and the increasing price makes buyers see the coin's growth potential and want to have it more.
An additional factor that every self-respecting investor pays attention to is the number of tokens in the pool and the number of circulating tokens. Burning does a good job here too, making our token more attractive. Because through the rising token price and increased interest, the temporary market depth increases and price fluctuations decrease.
A higher price also means a higher value of votes. Someone who previously gave you 1 cent per vote starts giving you 2 cents or even 10.
So it doesn't matter if you get less if it's worth more. It's not about quantity, but about the quality of what you buy.
Moreover, inflation on Blurt is programmed in a descending manner, which means that with each subsequent year, fewer and fewer tokens will appear on our blockchain at the same time, which will, of course, lead to a natural increase in price. By burning tokens, we simply speed up this process because these blurs will never be created again and someone will not get them in the future, and therefore, if they still see the point in buying them, they will buy less for more and thus everyone who has invested now or received a certain amount of them quantity, in 5 years he can sell them for much much more. Our concern is only to maintain that in 5 years our platform will still be interesting enough for investors to want our Blurts, and not that there will be a lot of tokens for them ;-)
However, it is impossible to approach the topic without looking from the other side:
Ctime, of course, does not have to take care of our common future, but only hopes to increase the price before the next market boom. However, it is not surprising that all investors in all cryptocurrency ecosystems take such steps. And of course many other people can benefit from this situation too.
Let's be honest, when investing in crypto, each of us expects to sell it for a higher price and make money when the price goes up, and basically, when making such a decision, few people think about all those guys who will get their asses kicked after the boom and don't sell for a higher price. However, it does not matter whether Ctime does it only for personal benefits or not, limiting the number of tokens will be good for the platform. Moreover, someone will buy the tokens that he sells and will probably not want to resell them cheaper, so he will do everything in his power to make the price go even higher and the platform develop. (Unless Facebook buys us or X wants to destroy the competition, but let's be honest, it can happen at any time and is rather doubtful for now ;) ).
Another argument against is that we basically already have a built-in token burning system. Each of us who uses Blurt to post, vote or interact in any way "pays" a micro-fee that goes to @null. The truth is that the best thing for the blurt price is simply the ACTIVITY of users, and in particular the natural activity not aimed at tapping posts for tokens, but resulting from the desire to take part in a discussion or share something cool.
And not only because tokens are burned, but also because a living platform is the best proof for potential investors from outside that it is worth investing here, and the best way to ensure that other people from outside join our platform and participate in its life also burn distributed and traded the token, increasing not only its value but also its usefulness.
Where there are many users, there is scope for creators of new applications, new solutions and facilities for our users.
Excessive temporary reductions in rewards due to burning and lack of treatment from whalers like Ctime may actually negatively impact some users and reduce the number of people using the platform instead of increasing it. Although the question is what kind of people will these be? Most often, however, such screening concerns the so-called leeches, i.e. people who want to drain the platforms that pay through spamming and voting circles and other activities that are not conducive to this blockchain anyway.
The fact that the authors of really good content are not compensated properly also plays a role here. However, it is worth remembering that blurt is still susceptible to very large price fluctuations. There are so many opportunities here that what costs $100 now may cost $1,000 or even $2,000 in a year.
To sum up, in my opinion, the Ctime idea is neutral with a slight tilt in the positive direction. I neither encourage nor discourage. I rather appeal to restraint in expressing harsh opinions.
And above all, I encourage you to be active and invite your friends, family and authors of good content to join us.
There is no amount of token burning that will help us stand out so much, as great activity of users, characterized by a natural need for social space, and good organic advertising through word of mouth.
Moja opinia na temat palenia toeknów?
Ostatnio zawrzało na temat propozycji Ctime o kuracji w zamian za spalanie tokenów.
W mojej opini zupenie niepotrzebnie.
Podniosły się głosy że to żadne wsparcie dla platformy i jest to szkodliwe ponieważ bardzie pomogło by gdyby autorzy widzieli sensowne stawki za swoje wpisy, ponadto wg niektórych spalanie tokenów nie ma bezpośredniego wpływu na cenę.
W pierwszej chwili warto więc przypomnieć że:
Ctime jak każdy z nas tutaj jest niezależnym posiadaczem tokenów który nabył je po przez wymianę giełdową i może podejmować decyzję odnośnie tego co z nimi robi i jak ją wykorzystuje w sposób w jaki mu odpowiada i jaki uważa dla siebie lub/i platformy za korzystny.
Ważne jest zrozumienie tego "lub/i" w poprzednim zdaniu ponieważ oczywiście w cale nie musi kierować się dobrem platformy.
Czy w mojej opini, kieruje się nim?
Odpowiedź jest niejednoznaczna i trudno wtłoczyć ją w proste tak lub nie.
Przedewszystkim palenie tokenów MA i zawsze będzie miało pozytywny wpływ na cenę tokenu lecz nie zawsze zobaczymy efekty tych posunięć w krótkoterminowym rozliczeniu. Czasem pozytywny wpływ przyćmiony jest tym żę cena z innych pwodów i tak leci w dół i chociaż spalanie amortyzuje upadek to mało kto w takiej sytuacji to dostrzega.
Pamiętajmy że cena zawsze jest wynikiem podaży i popytu.
Chociaż czynników które wpływają na podaż i popyt jest dużo więcej to ostatecznie jednym z najważniejszych jest przekonanie kupującego o tym czy warto daną rzecz kupić oraz rzadkość danej waluty. Sprzedający natomiast musi wierzyć w wartość swojego portwela aby nie oddać go zbyt tanio.
Spalanie, wpływa oczywiście na to że Blurtów jest mniej więc sprzedający nie odsprzedają ich za niską cenę dodatkowo rosnąca w ten sposób cena sprawia że kupujący widzą potencjał wzrostowy coina i bardziej chcą go mieć.
Dodatkowym czynnikiem, na który zwraca uwagę każdy szanujacy się inwestor to ilość tokenów w puli, oraz ilość cyrkulujących tokenów. Tu też Burning robi dobrą robotę czyniąc nasz token bardziej atrakcyjnym. Ponieważ poprzez rosnącą cenę tokenu i zwiększone zainteresowanie, zwiększa się chwilowa głębokość rynku i zmniejszają się wahania ceny.
Wyższa cena to również większa wartośc głosów. Ktoś kto wcześniej przydzielał wam 1 centa za głos, zaczyna przydzielać 2 centy albo i 10.
Nie szkodzi więc że dostajecie mniej skoro jest to warte więcej. Tu nie o ilość chodzi a o jakość tego co kupujecie.
Ponmadto inflacja na Blurcie jest zaprogramowana malejąco co oznacza że z każdym kolejnym rokiem na naszym blockchainie będzei się pojawiało coraz mniej tokenów w tym samym czasie co oczywiście będzie prowadzić do naturanelgo wzrostu ceny. Spalając tokeny poprostu przyspieszamy ten proces ponieważ te blurty poprostu nigdy już nie powstaną i ktoś ich w przyszłości nie dostanie a co za tym idzie, jeśli wciąż bedzei widział sens ich kupowania to kupi mniej za więcej i tym samym każdy kto teraz zainwestował lub otrzymał pewną ich ilość, za 5 lat może sprzedać je za dużo dużo więcej. Naszym zmartwieneim jest wiec raczej postarać się o to aby za 5 lat nasza platforma była wciąż na tyle interesująca dla inwestorów żeby porządali naszych Blurtów a nie w tym, aby było ich duzo ;-)
Nie da się jednak podejść do tematu bez spojrzenia z drugiej strony.
Ctime oczywiście wcale nie musi się tu keirować naszą wspólną przyszłością a jedynie liczyć na wywindowanie ceny przed zbliżającą się już dużymi krokami kolejna hossą na rynku. Niema w tym jednak nic dziwnego że wszyscy inwestorzy we wszystkich ekosystemach kryptowalutowych podejmują takie kroki.
Powiedzmy sobie szcerze każdy z nas inwestując w krypto liczy że sprzeda je drożej i zarobi jak cena pójdzie do góry i zasadniczo mało kto podejmując taką decyzję, zastanawia się nad tymi wszystkimi kolesiami którzy dostaną w kopa w tyłek po hossie i nie sprzedaja drożej. Niemniej nieważne czy Ctime robi to tylko dla osobistych korzyści czy nie to i tak dla platfromy ograncizenie ilości tokenów będzie dobre. Ktoś ponadto kupi te tokeny które on sprzeda i raczej nie będzie chciał ich potem odsprzedać taniej więc też będzie robił wszystko co w jego mocy aby cena poszła jeszcze wyżej a platforma rozwijała się. (Chyba że wykupi nas facebook albo X z chęcią zniszczenie konkurencji no ale powiedzmy sobie szczerze to sie może zdarzyć w każdej chwili i póki co jest raczej wątpliwe ;) ).
Kolejnym argumentem przeciw jest to że zasadniczo mamy juz wbudowany system spalania tokenów. Każdy z nas kto używa Blurta do publikowania, głosowania lub podejmowania jakichklowiek interakcji "płaci" mikroopłatę która trafia do @null. Prawda jest więc taka że najlepszą rzeczą dla ceny blurta jest poprostu AKTYWNOŚĆ użytkowników a w szczególności ta naturalna aktywność nieukierunkowana na klepanie postów dla tokenów, a ta wynikająca z chęci wzięcia udziału w dyskusji lub podzielenia się czymś fajnym.
I to nie tylko dlatego że tokeny są spalane ale rówież dlatego że żywa platforma to najlepsze świadectwo dla potencjalnych inwestorów z zewnątrz że warto tu inwestować, oraz najlepszy sposób na to aby inne osoby z zewnątrz dołączały się do naszej platformy i uczestnicząc w jej życiu również spalały dystrybuowały i handlowały tokenem podnosząc nie tylko jego wartość ale i użyteczność.
Tam gdzie bowiem jest dużo użytkowników pojawia się pole dla twórców nowych aplikacji, nowych rozwiązań i udogodnień dla naszych userów.
Nadmierne tymczasowe zmniejszenie nagród spowodowane spalaniem i brakiem kuracji ze strony wioelorybów takich jak Ctime może w rzeczy samej z kolei negatywnei wpłynąc na niektórych userów i zamiast sprawić że liczba osób korzystajacych z platfromy zwiększy się, zacznie się zmniejszać. Chociaż pytanie też jakie to będą osoby? Najczesciej jednak taki przesiew dotyczy tzw pijawek, czyli osób chcących drenować platformy które płacą po przez spamowanie i voting circle i inne aktywności które tak czy siak nie sprzyjają temu blockchainowi.
Fakt że autorzy naprawdę dobrych treści również nie są właściwe wynagradzanie również ma tu znaczenie. Warto jednak pamiętać że blurt wciąz podatny jest na bardzo duże wahania ceny. Są tu na tyle dużę możliwości żę to co teraz kosztuje 100 dolarów za rok może kosztować 1000$ a nawet 2000$.
Reasumując moim zdaniem pomysł Ctime jest neutralny z lekkim wychyleniem wskazówki w pozytywną stronę. Nie zachęcam i nie zniechęcam. Apeluję raczej do powściągliwości w wyrażaniu ostrych opini.
A przedewszystkim Zachęcam do aktywności i zapraszania do nas znajomych, rodziny i autorów dobrych treści.
Thanks for your thoughts on this topic : )
"burning tokens will always have a positive impact on the token price"
Certainly not always. For example, if those tokens would never have been sold, eg: owner hodls long term, whale accounts created at startup that have never been touched, lost passwords, curation accounts, foundation members, etc. Supply and demand are the forces at play, of course, that is always the case. But "supply" does not mean total number of tokens. It means the available tokens, on the market to be bought and sold. Only a small portion of BLURT is actually available at any one time. Burning tokens does little (or nothing) to affect the available tokens. In other words, it has little (or no) effect on the supply side of the equation. What price impact it may have would be small, and happen quite some time after the actual moment the tokens are burned.
If we really wanted less BLURT available on the market (lower supply), instead of creating it and then putting it in cold storage forever, is to never create it at all. Yes, I'm talking about decreasing the rate of inflation (tokens created every day out of thin air). This is easy to do (a few seconds for any administrator) and has an instant impact on the free tokens available. It's fair (effects everyone equally), rather than asking volunteers to burn their own money to help the community. Inflation can't be done away with completely, but it doesn't have to be as high as it is. If the problem is too much BLURT hanging around, then let's cut back on the rate we're pumping out more.
"So it doesn't matter if you get less if it's worth more."
How about the USD in our accounts? Can we burn that too, and increase the value of our remaining USD? If I have $4000 in my savings account, how many should I burn? How much will the remaining USD go up in value? Are you sure it is going to be a good idea? What about my other cryptos, like my BTC, should I burn that too? Is it enough to purposely lose the keys to my wallets, or do I actually have to destroy the tokens? If I have 0.5 BTC, and I burn 0.25 BTC, does that mean the price will more-than-double so I come out ahead?
Please, try to answer these questions, or at least understand what I'm conveying by asking them.
Doesn't anyone else find if funny that some big curators are campaigning to get people to burn a portion of their BLURT rewards (income)... and rewarding them in more BLURT rewards?! : D
"a living platform is the best proof for potential investors from outside that it is worth investing here"
So true! And when they check us out, we can show them: "Our cryptocurrency is SO good, we're destroying it as fast as we can! Join up, and help us burn all these BLURTS to raise the price!" : D
"people who want to drain the platforms that pay through spamming and voting circles and other activities that are not conducive to this blockchain"
Ahhh yes, like Rychard, the guy tasked with ensuring such behavior doesn't happen here. LOL
Gave you 100%, thanks for the good content.
In the long term, yes. Ultimately, those who hold the token for the long term will also want to cash it in, and then fewer tokens will hit the market.
But you don't get it... This whole idea of burning is solely an initiative of Ctime, which, as an investor with some experience, makes this decision on its own. He has the right to do so as everyone knows. He came up with this way to increase the price and he is doing it. Just like the former group that collected funds to strengthen the stock exchange or people who promote something on their own... you don't have to approve it and you don't have to like it, but this is not the official position of all witnesses ;]
The team currently has a plan to reduce the number of tokens in the pool by a very large amount and thus improve the stability of our market, and it will be announced during the HF soon, but for now I cannot reveal anything more.
As for inflation, take into account the following:
Yes, there is high inflation, but as I wrote, we also have a built-in token burning system in exchange for brandwith and now imagine that suddenly we have 1,000 more users and heated discussions break out in hundreds of threads. let's assume that each of them will burn an average of 2 - 5 burnts a day during their activity, which gives us 2,000 - 5,000 burnts a day per 1,000 people burned for activity + the current 1,000 people is already 4,000 - 10,000 every day. At the same time, inflation has been decreasing over time... See what I'm getting at?
Real inflation depends on the number of users. If the portal becomes popular, deflation will begin to appear.
my article wanted you to relax about getting excited because it is a PERSONAL initiative of one of the users. It's true, but you can't stop him from acting as he thinks is right and you can't blame him for not wanting to continue to expand the pool of tokens. Remember that he has invested much more money here than you or I, so he is taking a much greater risk. you may not like his idea, but you can't blame him for looking for a way to get a return on his investment.
There is so little 'interesting' material already - this is the problem.
'Interest generating material' online means controversy, talking points, conflict. (for better or worse , this is the reality)
The individuals who create such material are all leaving ! ('whitelists'?lol - a black list by any other name, and one that only supports mediocrity and conformity - not unique or original).
I've yet to see increased activity - productivity - as being a bi-product of any kind of taxation.
it's true but it's happening all over the internet. there are more and more short and stupid short posts or repeating over and over something that the authors do not even fully understand, and there are fewer and fewer sensible discussions and pages that contain extensive thematic content. This, of course, proves what the new generations are like and how successful globalist policy is.
I think it's not just a matter of this. Good bloggers are looking for an audience, but unfortunately it's hard to find it here because, after all, there are few of us here and even fewer are interested in given topics. it's simple: out of 100 people, maybe 10 have similar interests and views, and maybe 2-3 of them take part in the discussions. There are over 1,000 active non-fake accounts here. and the statistics are correct. On average, 2-3 people comment on each interesting thread ;)
and this, in my opinion, is revealing - you see, on Facebook, no one wants anything from you for discussing it because they make money by profiling you. Here you pay for the medium and it is basically very logical. When there was no Internet yet, it was obvious that, for example, exchanging correspondence was the cost of paper and stamps borne by correspondents :)
The problem is that there is an interesting trick here - the tax ultimately turns into profit over time because rewards for posts increase in value thanks to frequent correspondence.
My blog(s), are getting over 400 views per blog and lots of interactions.
Disincentive's for the effort that goes into making interesting blogs, doesn't do this (tax)....'putting the horse before the cart', as it were.
DPoS is A FLAWED MODEL .
The sooner people bite the reality bullet, the more chance there is of getting the led zeplin airborne...(see my post re IQ and hubris - it isn't gonna happen - imo)
yes, but you mean a blog on a private server, that's a different thing. because websites under a specific domain are visited mainly by those interested in your work, and I am talking about blurt as a multi-threaded social media space with a common pool of users, each of whom is looking for something for themselves. here the converter is different.
well it seems natural to me. although it may not work because today's world is upside down.
In normal life, you first pay the cost of your initiative, and when it turns out to be successful, you not only get your costs back, but you also start earning money. Everything in normal life works this way. Work first, pay later. Most often, 90% of the efforts come to naught and only 10% usually turn out to be successful enough to cover the costs of previous failures and allow for solid earnings.
This is how I see it through the eyes of an entrepreneur and a prepper who scratches his own kneecap ;)
Pft, I'll see your scratched kneecap, and raise you a 3/4 meter cobra !...lolol (clearing a heap of dead grass this morning....Fortunately it was slithering away, and no hassles, but good reminder to put my wellies on, and not stay in sandals while gardening...)
...On a more serious note...
( the snake thing is not something that provokes much of a response in these parts)....
...I can understand the principle behind @ctime's initiative. Why should he have to prop up the price ?
He shouldn't (of course) - and in truly free markets, this question wouldn't even arise.
The structure of DPoS is not a free market. Meritocracy is not rewarded - the most fundamental of drivers behind free markets.
As such, non free market 'financial manipulations' do play a part here (using the term 'free market' in it's purest form).
As @mariuszkarowski said some months ago, when I was arguing the point of quality content on blurt, with him saying (in effect, apologies if it's not entirely accurate) that it 'not being that relevant'.
As a financial instrument, he is correct - posting content acting as 'the oil to keep the blockchain lubricated and moving - nothing more.
(which really does beg so many questions, in itself - but I'll leave that for now .lol)
My thought on the eventual outcomes of all DPoS platforms remain the same, sadly.
This is a systemic issue - one of structure and mechanics.
So I can understand ctime's perspectives from the principle that he outlined above, in context of it not being a 'social media driven, value proposition', but one of a speculative financial tool - and to be utilized as each individual see's fit.
As such, and within the boundaries of what DPoS is, I find myself agreeing with him...
a free market is one in which there is no external manipulation of the market by the government or other institutions with the help of regulations, i.e. top-down imposed and enforceable laws, the omission of which means repercussions. However, various situations appear on the free market to which independent entities can respond by implementing various ideas for solving them. Ctimie did not establish a law here, but simply proposed a solution to the low price of the token.
You could call the lack of a free market a situation in which witnesses establish such an obligation.
Mariusz said well that the quality of content does not matter. Take a look at Facebook: 90% of them are fake posts and the quality of the content verifies your willingness to be noticed. People try if they want to be noticed by their group of recipients, not just for votes, and whether you create something interesting or not is quickly verified by the "market" of recipients. If you create boring content and you can't gather a community around you, you simply won't get any likes. If you create something interesting and know how to reach the right audience, you get likes.
Apart from the fact that Facebook is a highly censored medium, we could say that we also have a free market for the supply and demand of content there.
Temat widziałem i nie mam zdania, a palić jako malutki nie mam zamiaru. Praktycznie czekają nas dwie hossy w ciągu 150 tygodni i faktycznie może być to zagranie pod kilku osób, które szybko zwalą torby. Problem jest gdzie indziej i należałoby zacząć od wywiązywania się samych witnesses, a nie drenowanie. Brak zewnętrznej komunikacji i rozgłosu to brak zainteresowania osób...bez wartości nie będzie wartości zainteresowania.
Dodam że projekt który obserwuję pierw ustabilizował społeczność, zakup, i wiele opcji związanych za token dopiero po dwóch latach wprowadził spalanie i efekt rzeczywiście jest- wzrost.
A no i tu też masz rację. Cóż czas pokaże. Osobiście obserwuję pozytywną koniunkturę i raczej nie ma już potencjału na więcej dram także ta hossa jest być nie być dla blurta. I niesie duże możliwości.
@drutter, maybe worth a read? 🔥💵
I don't get notifications, so tagging me does nothing, just so you know : P
But thanks for trying. And I did happen to find this post on my own, haha.
Very good buddy! You are a true onliner!!!😜🤣👍💻
Does Rarity increase Value ?
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scarcity_value#:~:text=Rarity%20leads%20to%20a%20high,case%20of%20the%20bluefin%20tuna.
....digital financial products are not comparable to real world commodities.
(top tip : never use wikipedia for economic philosophy - they tend to think mmt is a good idea!...bloody leftists. lol)
Taxation on producers is not a good idea - it stifles activity. (see every historical free-ish markets)
Taxation through coercion (not set to null? then no upvote) is not a sound strategy imo.
People hate threats.
I find Wikipedia to just be a collection of quotes taken from real books. Usually sourced at the bottom of each entry.
Yes, you're right, that's why I think ctime is approaching this a bit wrong. However, some people will be tempted and the effect will be positive. Although with these threats and people, all you have to do is go back 3 years and it turns out that 90% of society loves threats and likes to adapt to them.
100% disagree.
Do fewer houses on the Real Estate market result in higher prices of available houses ?
Do fewer Rental units result in an increase in Rent ?
Interesting questions ..
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scarcity_value#
Why is Bitcoin so much more valuable than Blurt ?
Because there will only ever be 21 Million Bitcoin.
How can we reduce the # of Blurt from 519 Million to 21 Million ?
By burning 498 Million Blurt.
Source: https://ecosynthesizer.com/blurt/
The Four Forms of Value
What makes something valuable? Why are diamonds more valuable than the rocks in my yard? There are 4 things that affect the value of something. They are: usable value, rare value, aesthetic value, and emotional value.
Source: https://medium.com/@iamjared/the-four-forms-of-value-be69c2fddf2a#:~:text=Rare%20value%20is%20simply%20a,to%20decrease%20access%20to%20it.
Zauwazyl ten post @ctime. Czy korzystny to sie nie znam. Tak jak powiedziales ja zawsze lubie interakcje do posta. I tak jak kazdy chcialbym cos skubnac z blurta. A jeszcze fajniej byloby jakby to bylo reklamowane szerzej. Tylko czy np. Znane osoby z social media bed bawic sie w blogowanie swoich tresci? Czas pokaze.
promując blurta na fb zauwazyłem że jest mnóstwo grup dla mikroblogerów gdzie są setki blogerów szukających sposopbu na rozpromowanie sie. Pytanie jak ich tu sciągnąć i pokazać że to im się bardziej opłaca? myślę że wciąż brakuje narzędzi np możliwości customizowania swojego bloga czy też wstawiania własnej reklamy w celu dodatkowego zarobku itp.
Znane osoby zaczną sie bawić jak: albo zaineresuje je koncepcja i zechcą to wspierać sami z siebie, albo jak zauważą niewykorzystaną przestrzeń dla siebie. mówiąc przestrzeń mam na myśli spore grono czytelników.
Z reklamą nie ma problemu i może wrócę, do bitercrypto tylko muszę sobie ugruntować podkład na wszelkie zakupy. Zauważ, że nie potrzebuje klików bezpośrednich tylko wyświetlenia...jest wiele sposobów na dodatek i nieagresywny.
Ale przydałby się projekt, który daje możliwość wstawienia reklamy pod nazwą bloga za opłatą blurt. Na steem był taki fajny projekt umożliwiający wstawienia reklam. Temat jeden byłby rozwiązany z użytecznością tokena jak i zakupu...
Oj to była by miazga. Gdyby dało się reklamować siebie to w tym jest cash. dajmy nawet że było by to tylko parę blurtów ale zawsze coś.
Scarcity value:
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scarcity_value#:~:text=Rarity%20leads%20to%20a%20high,case%20of%20the%20bluefin%20tuna.
Also …
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scarcity_value#
Glad to read this article..thank you for sharing your views.
I prefer to appreciate the steps of someone who wants to Developing Blurt. There are many ways this can be done and burning is one of them. Apart from that, the plan is also aimed at fighting UPVU while increasing engagement. Your opinion is not objective enough, sir.