Is “pay to play” the right way for Steem?

Steemit just introduced a new sign-up option, allowing new users to pay to skip the (“one or two week”) sign-up queue.

But is this “pay to play” approach good for the platform?

First impressions count

On any platform, the sign-up process is often the first touch-point for a new user – their first impression. And those are kinda important.

When every other social platform they've ever joined has been an extremely simple, immediate (and free) process, that's what will be expected here as well.

As even the most positive Steemian must see, Steem isn’t the hottest platform out there, with hundreds of thousands a day wanting to join. Well not yet, but maybe one day (fingers crossed!).

Relatively speaking, we’re faced with a trickle of new users, not a tsunami.

So, asking new users to pay to skip the queue? A queue they [rightly] think shouldn't even be there!

What does this say about Steem?

“Fixing” the sign-up process has obviously been giving the development team many headaches.

But is the problem being prioritised highly enough, or are we seeing the work-around which allows it to kicked down the road?

To a new user; someone outside the community, maybe they'll think, "WTF!?" and just not bother signing-up.

Maybe they’ll think, “why should the have’s get in quicker than the have not’s?” This would especially ring-true if they* can’t afford* to pay.

At best, it’s mildly annoying having to wait when others get immediate access. It’s not a positive experience, or a good first impression.

To me, it feels like Steem is targeting existing users opening multiple accounts.

Who wants to pay, anyway?

Maybe the whales, or those with lots of SP who want to spread their wealth around to hide their true status? This would certainly give the impression that the wealth is being more fairly distributed on Steem – an issue we all recognise.

Or spammers, who're playing the numbers game and need a constant supply of fresh accounts which haven't had their reputation trashed [yet]?

If either of these groups is who the “pay to play” approach is targeting, neither should take priority over a new user – even if they can afford to pay.

The developers fight against spam

My feeling is that it’s the spammers who’re being targeted – that they’re the real reason for the update. Anything to slow them down or make them think twice about opening multiple accounts.

But will it stop them?

To a spammer, a one or two-week wait is nothing. They’ll already have a constant stream of applications in the queue at any given time.

How should Steem fight spam?

That’s the million-dollar question.

And how can, or should they keep spam out of an open, censorship-free platform?

My view is that Steem Inc should try. But instead of fighting the spammers at the door, you make the rewards system as spam-proof as possible. So, it’s not a viable “business model” to spam on Steem.

And please don’t just ‘leave it to the community’ to self-regulate.

You could argue that we need a real solution, not any more self-appointed “policing” accounts run by community members – wherever they might fall on the self-important/judgemental/well-meaning spectrum.

Here’s one idea

A good first step, and a fairly easy-to-implement one, would be to target comment spam.

Copy/paste, or throw-away one-liners are easy to spot in a database – an algorithm can do that job. Why not flag such comments/posts and de-monetise them?

This might mean taking away/returning any upvotes awarded before they’re paid after 7 days. Those “flagged” comments/posts enter a “review period”, allowing the author to request a manual review.

But in requesting a manual review, they’d be drawing attention to the account, and its practices and risk further action.

So, you’re not censoring spam, you’re taking away the ability to monetise it.

This approach would also make it very easy to spot patterns in the comment spam, and upvoting practices between accounts/users in a “network” or “voting community”.

If we have big data at our fingertips; why not use it for the good of the platform and community?

I’d love to hear what you think

What are your thoughts on the paid sign-up option?

I try to stay away from politics, or controversial topics, but I’m an active/caring/concerned member of this community, so wanted to share my view. I’m not saying I’m right, and anybody else is wrong. But I’d love to talk more if it’s something you feel passionately about as well.