You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: [Vlog] Smart Media Tokens - A counter-argument (Inital thoughts)
Have been very positive about the SMT developments, but your insights here make me reconsider.
You are right, the value of any token or currency is determined by investors and what they are willing to pay for it. So yes, without large investors backing a specific SMT, it's indeed like pissing in the wind.
On the other hand, when you do have a big community and lots of capital at your disposal (the NYT example) there is added value for an STM since you can set of parameters differently than here on Steemit. Your settings will impact the extent of a potential troll whale problem.
Believe me you'd need to be a killer salesman to get close to selling the idea of a NYTC to the NYT. The reputational risk, lack of a proven benefit of having your own SMT, the maintenance... the list goes on.
Far easier to sell the idea that they need to have a presence on Steemit because that is where their audience is. Grab the audience and the institutions will follow. It's been that way for a long time now.
SMT === Pissing in the wind -> For startups
Because the investors go where the audience is... which is Ned's main point.
But the reality is:
those big players have many investors that are not really interested in changing anything until their business model is actually threatened.
So how is SMT any different than EOS is my question.
And is SMT a response to it?
EOS is more like an operating system for smart contracts, with blockchain at it's core, and it's really perfect for things like automation of business processes, including robotics, AI, legal and messaging.
I had always assumed, Steem would move over to EOS when available, as it's underlying blockchain ;-) No?
I guess not! (Ethereum envy?)
I think SMT is more of a platform for token sales organized around publishing... but can do more than that.
A solution, looking for a problem perhaps ;-)