You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Why stay?
And, in general, things that didn't work out well should be rolled back.
Not rolled back, new attempts. They were changed for reasons, why go back?
Unintended consequences are, well, not as intended, but if we let that stop us completely from trying to shape the environment into a state more people actually enjoy and want to participate in for a longer period, Steemit is doomed anyway.
Isn't that what is happening now? For many, this place is enjoyable and getting more so but for the few who came in early and remember the good times, it isn't going the way they want which is, where they are benefiting with not a great deal of work.
Because they didn't work. There should be a feedback loop, not just feed-forward. Reasons given beforehand for what should happen become irrelevant as soon as real consequences become apparent. Experiments with consequences always trump reasoning.
No. Churn is huge, and only a fraction of registered users are active. Distribution is atrocious, and getting worse. We're not on a sustainable path, I don't believe.
N^2 didn't work either except for a few who collected early.
Count the alts and people who created alts but barely used them once upon a time and it isn't so high. There are strings of usernames created but never posted. There are alts created for things like zappl that posted a couple times and then were forgotten etc. The churn isn't as high as people make out. There aren't many active users though, you are right there.