You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: DAILY STEEM REPORT SEPTEMBER, 11TH ★ STEEM 1.27$ + 1066 New Accounts
I gotta ask... what does religion have to do with this discussion? Is there an element here I'm missing?
Having watched how STEEM has moved in the last year, unless the crypto markets take a serious tumble and stay down, it is very unlikely it will go below $1US.
What problems are you referring to that is resistance to entry of use? I love how people are so inclined to zero in on any perceived problems with this groundbreaking platform as the kiss of death and seem to ignore the positive that keeps it moving. Nothing is perfect, but nothing is all wrong either.
I have personally directed numerous people to steemit.com. 25% of those people have awesome problems to sign-up. Another 25% do sign-up and write 1 or 2 comments and never come again. Only 50% become regular users of which half of them only use steemit.com a few times a week.
Markets behave in a way where people suffer greatly under the pressure of FOMO. Refer to one of my previous posts about 2 weeks ago where China ICO news had pushed all currencies down. At USD 1.10 I was shouting buy buy buy, it's going up to USD 1,50 within 48h. Exactly 24h later the USD 1,51 was reached. While the "sheep" had set their religion i.e. belief to "bear", the deep books were on "bull". You see, not even Warren Buffett knows where stock prices will go tomorrow, he knows where they will go in 10 years. The same applies for the crypto market. My belief is, there are a number of parties that will distribute bad news at regular intervals, not that it matters on the longterm, but on the short term offering buying opportunities. "Religion" refers to the fact that regardless of what the market populations believe, they cannot predict the shortterm future without being very "cold" about it. Emotions lead to FOMO, regardless in what direction, leads to hurtful experiences.
Fact is, related to total user quantity, growth of steemit is decelerating. It's not linear. It's a convex curve.
well, you are entitled to your opinions based on what you believe or your experiences. The information I come across from people who crunch the numbers from the blockchain doesn't' seem to match your conclusion.
The growth is not exponential but it is not decelerating either.
OK, let's crunch the numbers. At the end of April, how many users did we have, and what was the average daily sign-up of new users for that month? At the end of August, how many users did we have, and what was the average sign-up of new users per day for that month? You cannot compare daily new sign-ups to each other, you have to relate them to the total pool of users at that point in time, or you have no way to judge if growth is decelerating or accelerating. So please let's do that now. Please review the numbers you have and present them. Thanks.
The growth of the site has more to do with the level of active users than the number of signups. The signups include people who will discover the site is not a get rich quick scheme and will go looking for the next scheme in short order.
Active users are a much better gauge. I spoke with a member who does actual number crunching and analysis on the site, @paulag and asked if growth was decelerating.
Her answer was that it is not. Active users are remaining at a steady level. So, well the active users are not climbing at the rate of signups, which would be the better result, they are not dropping which would be deceleration.
Does this mean you don't want to crunch the numbers afterall?
the numbers have been crunched by someone who I find has a great expertise... I will trust her analysis. Like I said earlier, you are entitled to your opinion and whatever it may be based on. I am entitled to mine based on a source I trust.
Maths has no opinion. If a recent ratio is smaller than older ones then it demonstrates a relative decline. Now you wanted to crunch the numbers to demonstrate to me that that is not the case. However if somebody "tells" you something that fits into your wishful thinking, then a numerical demonstration is simply "trusted". This is a diversion from radical transparency.
actually, I never said anything about wanting to crunch numbers.
You decided you want to apparently demonstrate your assumed wisdom which would amount to telling me what fits into your wishful thinking.
So, I'd say at this point, I'm not about to believe your wishful thinking and you are not about to believe the person I have seen has demonstrated her ability to crunch the numbers and do analysis... so this conversation has come to its logical end.