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 ;)
My blog(s), are getting over 400 views per blog and lots of interactions.
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.
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.