"Voice" (MEOS) Announcement ... Much Ado About Nothing
#B1June ... "Voice" (MEOS) Announcement
... "The Crypto Social Media Revolution Has Arrived!"
A week ago, I wrote an article entitled, MEOS ... June 1st ... The STEEM/Steemit Killer that generated a lot of feedback. In it, I excoriated STEEM/Steemit Whales and Witnesses (for the millionth time) for having squandered a 3 year crypto social media monopoly and predicted, based upon the occurrence of predicates, that the rumored upcoming June 1 MEOS ("Voice") launch would decimate our blockchain.
The predicates were not fulfilled.
At 7:15 PM EST, Block.One (EOS' development company) released their Keynote Address (recorded before the actual event to an empty auditorium) as part of their massively hyped June 1st shindig in Washington, D.C.
I own an advertising agency and hence the quality of advertising/marketing initiatives is something I cannot help but notice. It wasn't long before I began to cringe. A bunch of computer nerds awkwardly competing with one another to look the most "dressed down" for the occasion ... "Dude, I'm even more chill than Steve Jobs."
"Nevermind," I thought to myself, "You're being too judgemental. You're ex-military and critical of all Millennials who think they're too special to make an effort to impress. If they provide a functional, Cheat-Free Steemit, I'll DM them some PR suggestions for their next go-round."
In the Keynote's 26 minutes and 14 seconds, five separate speakers managed to take the stage (on multiple occasions) ... an oratorical Musical Chairs, with one guy verbalizing a bucket of buzzwords and hackneyed cliches before tag teaming the next. While it's true that computer programmers are not notoriously charismatic (and therefore it's incumbent upon the rest of us to cut them some slack), one would think that prior to such a "Momentous Announcement," they would have invested a small portion of their $3 billion in cash in a public speaking coach ... and someone with command of language to help them write their speeches, as when leaders speak, their job is not just to inform, but to inspire.
They did not.
This fella never once removed his hands from his pockets. Public Speaking is difficult for many ... but if you can't do it, find someone who can. You only have seconds to make a First Impression and people's investments are dependent upon your ability to do so.
Of those 26 minutes and 14 seconds, only six minutes even addressed the BIG NEWS, the launch of "Voice," a new crypto-based social media platform. It was a veritable parade of platitudes to announce a Twitter knock-off, differentiated only by having no character limits and its ability to earn Voice Tokens.
So ... what's so wrong with that?
As it turns out, the Voice Tokens aren't redeemable for other cryptos (including EOS) or fiat. Their only use is the ability to bump up the position of one's comments on other people's posts.
WTF!
"Cryptos" are about "being money," remember?
Dan Larimer included a single sentence that might provide a modicum of hope:
"And this is just the first way to use your Voice Token. But we plan to have many more ways to use and earn Voice Tokens in the future."
Well, what the Hell does that mean?
If one of those ways is not their conversion into fiat, then Voice Tokens won't be worth squat to anyone. And, if such future convertibility is intended, then this was the Mother Of All Omissions? Ought people accumulate them on the off-chance they might one day be redeemable ... or spend them with abandon on "comment amplification" because they'll never possess monetary value? And, if people did the latter, and someday the tokens did become redeemable ... wouldn't such people be utterly furious?
"You mean to tell me I pissed away $25,000 on comment amplification? I could have paid off my daughter's college student loans."
Remember all that talk about the evilness of Facebook and YouTube because they were monetizing users' content and keeping all, or almost all, the profits for themselves and their shareholders? About how the content creators were getting screwed? It would seem as if the only ones who will benefit financially from Voice will be EOS holders. Perhaps tellingly, not a word about any of this from Dan et al.
Dan, I'm a content creator ... where's my cut?
The Best ... And Worst ... Thing That Could Have Happened For STEEM/Steemit
In my pre-launch article, I opined about why STEEM/Steemit was so vulnerable to a MEOS ("Voice") launch (presuming it would be a functional, Cheat-Free Steemit 2.0 as rumored):
Corrupted systems (political, cultural, economic) ALWAYS implode.
The reason is simple: All complex systems create force-multiplying positive or negative feedback loops (sometimes both). STEEM/Steemit is a complex system that is corrupt to its core. The pretense of "quality mattering" is long dead. Notwithstanding a few notable exceptions, Orcas and Whales (85% of SP) aren't even pretending to care about quality or curation. Instead, they're leasing their SP to bidbots or DApp projects in which they have an interest so as to generate Passive Income in the form of interest ... instead of earning Curation Awards from their SP holdings as intended.
Fair enough, it's their money.
But as most people over 18 understand, nothing is life is free ... and actions have consequences. By seeking to maximize their own short-term profits, they knowingly destroyed the Central Premise upon which the entire blockchain was constructed (and yes, Steemit was/is the essence of STEEM), that: Content Shall Be Compensated Commensurate With Its Quality.
And people like me ... the A-Team Content Creators ... are not happy about it.
And hence, my repeated admonitions that the moment a "viable alternative" to Steemit appeared, there would be a mass, and IMMEDIATE, exodus of the quality content producers and that STEEM's figment of legitimacy would evaporate.
Despite EOS's Big Announcement being a non-event, every word of that was, and still is, true. STEEM/Steemit will live another day, but the vulnerability remains.
It could have been my imagination, but during the weeks leading up to the Voice launch, I thought I finally sensed fear. That amongst the more thoughtful of the Whales and Witnesses there was the realization that the chickens had finally come home to roost. It seemed like there was an increase in scurrying about, trying to enact reforms to prevent a looming catastrophe.
But now that we've dodged the bullet, yet again (as if by Divine Intervention), will that continue? Or, will they revert back to arrogance and complacency, pretending that we don't have HUGE systemic problems in need of serious systemic reforms?
Admittedly, I struggle to be an optimist.
Whatever the machinations of other crypto blockchains or traditional social media platforms, unless and until the endemic vote-buying/selling and other game-rigging manipulations cease, we are living on borrowed time.
*****
We have just been granted a temporary reprieve. I hope we are wise enough to use it.
Quill
*****
All images are linked to source, are QuillFire originals or are modifications of images in the public domain. Videos and images may also be parodies of original works, therefore relying upon applicable exemptions from copyright.
You guys know the QuillDrill. Be verbose ... but articulate.
And remember ...
Go Love a Starving Poet
For God's sake ... they're starving!
Those under the spell of Dan should ask him about his next exit.
@drakos,
.
.
You know, some people possess a certain kind of audaciousness that just has to be admired:
Quill
Hey Drakos! :)
I should drop by your blog more often. Any hard hitting posts lately? :)
@quillfire
As I noted in my tweet: a perfect example of a damp squibb. It occurred to me, reading your post and some of the comments, that external developments overtook them - but after they had created all the hype over the June 1 announcement.
I know Twitter has its issues, but to set up in opposition? That's farting against thunder. As Google learned with Google+ in opposition to Facebook. And now Facebook wants to launch its own token? I think that will be really interesting given some of the real challenges on that platform, and where censorship, on one hand, and face news, on the other, are realities.
Perhaps, as you suggest, this is Steemit's second chance.
In the contexts of your predicates (and caveats) with which, as you know, I agree, perhaps @dan and co. should grab the brass ring and do something about netting those lesser fish who are willing and able to help with the clean-up.
Fiona
PS I am smiling to myself, too, at how you managed to post this update sans egg on your face.... ;)
@fionasfavourites,
And THAT'S why they call me ... "The Quill." :-) :-) :-)
.
As I mentioned to @dandays:
At some point, you stop taking anything for granted. If cryto-gurus tell you, "It's Wednesday," you pull out the star charts just to make sure.
Quill
You had me at -
Farting against thunder
Definitely a skill an industry skill Ad man. I imagine you take great joy in an alternate spin. Fiona, I enjoy you calling him out on it too.
Edit. Peter Griffin demonstrated, you have to fart with the thunder, but even then, the storm moves and you are caught out trumping unappealing hot air.
@girlbeforemirror,
Nag, nag, nag.
Listen lassies, conditional predicates are a time-tested way of opining with paying the price of having an opinion. A Cover Your Ass strategy that allows one to live to fight another day. And, you have to admit, launching a crypto-backed social media platform ... sans the crypto-backing ... wasn't exactly a high probability event, was it?
I think I'm going to write a poem entitled, "Mean Girls." Both of you are going to get your own stanzas. :-)
Quill
I’ve never searched “eating humble pie” until now. That’s an alarming search actually, lots of nsfw ish, Quill—I’ll just go with this one:
@dandays,
The line that made the final cut:
The original line was:
I opted for seriousness over humor. In any event, I took pains to cover my ass with conditional predicates as cryptoworld long ago convinced me of its illogic and unpredictability. :-)
Now sufficiently primed, I will proceed to Google "eating humble pie." Wish me luck. :-)
Quill
You've invested 30k USD in steem, it doesn't matter when, bidbots start appearing, you see that you cannot really compete in making curation rewards by voting organically and flagging them is futile, what would you do? Are you gonna power down? Will you stay?
Posted using Partiko Android
@baah,
The system has to change so that there are Rules of Conduct that prevent cheating. The problem with corruption, of any kind, is that it disadvantages the people who try to conduct themselves in a manner which is honest and honorable. The solution, however, is not for everyone to say, "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em." That inevitably magnifies the problem and destroys the entire system.
We need Men of Good Conscience to find their courage.
I will stay if STEEM/Steemit makes the necessary reforms. If it doesn't, I will leave the MOMENT a "viable alternative" presents itself. Voice, as discussed, is not such a "viable alternative."
Make no mistake, I LOVE STEEM/Steemit and I want it to be the crypto-backed social media platform that dominates. But I refuse to be treated like a fool. My never-ending harangue is an effort to rile people up so that they start DEMANDING reforms.
To inspire the Silent Majority to stop being Silent. The way STEEM/Steemit presently operates is an insult to everyone's intelligence.
It's an uphill battle ... but as you may have noticed, I possess and inexhaustible repository of words and an ability, and willingness, to use them.
Quill
The problem with preventing cheating is that it costs everyone. If we want anonymity, if we want freedom of expression, if we want transparency, if we want to avoid creating unnecessary positions of power, we have to trade a portion of each of those for us to prevent cheating. The tradeoffs will in turn, change the very nature of steem as a decentralized, transparent, censorship proof platform. The better alternative is hindering the cheats, making cheating costly, so that cheating does not profit, as it does now. Implementing rules of conduct doesn't do anything without a way to enforce the rules. That position of enforcement needs to be trustless, so that it cannot be used to make the problem much worse than cheating.
Posted using Partiko Android
@baah,
With respect, mate, no we don't. People are making this out to be a lot harder than it is. I wrote a Series of Articles about how to reform the blockchain. It's actually relatively easy and there's no loss of anything. In any event, without reforms, there won't be a blockchain at all.
The Whole Series links to this post:
https://steemit.com/steemit/@quillfire/central-premise-and-proposals-a-series-about-fixing-steemit-part-4
We've got to get away from buzzwords and start talking about how to create something that actually WORKS. We get no points for building something that doesn't function.
Quill
Before I dive into your proposal I want to emphasize what I was getting at, what works and for who is predicated on how it works.
The premise that downvoting is demonetization is censorship is not correct because nobody is prevented or suppressed one iota by someone's poor rating that also caries the weight of their stake to vote against rewarding the item. The reward is not a guarantee and considering it as given is counter to how the system to curate is created to function, and why it was created. The system is designed to work with wisdom of the crowd. It thus means nothing that one person rated something as not worthy of rewards, as at that particular point, from the aspect of wisdom of the crowd there isn't a crowd. The way it functions is simple, take this example :
Someone writes a post, whatever it is, obscene or abusive, or incredibly important.
Post gets downvoted by one, two, three accounts, irrespective of reason.
Author can still publish posts, let's say the author is bothered by this. They publish a post exposing the downvoting. Post gets downvoted yet again. Noweher is there suppression. The author can continue to post, especially if he has an audience that disagree with the voting, even if they don't have enough stake to invalidate the downvoting on the post they can ask for support from their group to do so, and if the crowd forms it should not only reverse the flags but create more rewards than if the falgs weren't handed out.
If the Author has built themselves a following, they are insulated by their followers from being voted as rubbish, why? Because the downvotes essentially work invariably to cause even more posts that get published for even more eyes to find so the attempted suppression backfires and creates more controversy than had whoever tried to suppress it not have done so. You can't call it suppression because of intent, irrespective of intent suppression must be effective and demonstrable or it's not suppressing or suppression.
Censorship is impossible on here. People can publish whatever they want. They aren't entitled to any rewards what so ever though. If 100 people vote on someone's item and one person votes against them and wipes out any and all would be rewards that is exactly what they are allowed to do, because otherwise we would be censoring their freedom to express themselves by curating things as not worthy of rewards.
Allowing people to express support, appreciation and encouragement and only that, renders this place open to all kinds of problems much larger than any of the ones we have right now with vote selling, as no one has any chance to counter what they think ought to be rewarded nothing, and without the risk of people voting against rewards people will be able to self vote freely, creating a prisoner dilemma so that the risk of not getting a vote in return for giving one will make everyone only take whatever is given as taken, and will resort to reward only themselves, and as people become more and more sour they will eventually be the overwhelming silent majority self voting. Downvoting, is no different that booing and jeering after all, yet it becomes a robust counter to keep voting healthy and not let this experiment go into self voting meltdown at the same time. Out of a crowd of hundreds, one or two people booing a speaker is not censorship, it's heckling, it's expressing intolerance. Freedom of expression is the larger freedom that encompasses freedom of speech. If we are to be on guard of one kind of expression that is far to easy to suppress, is the expression of intolerance, of disgust, of hate itself, let alone malcontent and dissent all of which can be expressed without words, in volume alone and regardless of intent. If the whole crowd expresses the same intolerancr of the speaker that these hecklers did, they don't censor the speaker, as the speaker isn't entitled to a receptive or respectful audience and they shouldn't be, those things ought to be earned not freely given, and given only at discression.
You propose that a jury of n number of people vote. Yet the problem is that this takes time, this takes mental energy, and mental capacity, this requires that the voters are peers, or at the very least speak the same language, this requires that we sacrifice and expose people to all kinds of content that could disturb them. Naturally, people will opt out. That will make it so that the honest few are competing with the numerous alts of the ones who gain most, the sadist and the troll, by subverting the panel. You still haven't prevented it, or done anything to slow it down, just gave the option to reverse a flag or punish twice, a bot account will revel at the thought that it can cause so much distress in so many parties simply by downvoting , and ultimately the backlog of trials will grind to a halt because to coordinate such a system you have to find active people.. You haven't really considered that the system of jurors will be vulnerable to trolls of all kinds, as anonymity and the power to punish free of consequences will sound like free beer to them, and the few that join this, they will be taxed in both time and in considering/ judging, and they cannot be directly compensated as that would be gamed by a whole other group of people, and then the anonymity of the jurors would oy be a matter of queering the chain for such transactions, detailing how much and where to it's going.
The cost is robustness in this case, as a bad actor, regardless of the costs, will abuse the system and the downvotes, and they aren't prevented either way. This proof is the inverse of Censorship. As no ammount of downvoting will remove any account's right to publish whatever they want, and thus express themselves. Just as one bad actor will not relent in the face of your proposal, no good actor will relent in the face of what they're curated as, especially if they have an audience, and even more if they have a following.
The premise of "quality gets rewarded" is predicated on whatever one defines as quality. You do not propose to remove downvoting entirely as many usually suggest, you propose to create an committee that people over a certain rep sign up to do the unrewarded work of deciding what is quality, not what is right, and what is right is left to the few that want to sacrifice their time and mental energy on this and the rest who revel at the chance of causing misery.
I didn't bother to read the comments under your proposal, but @personz wasn't rebuked in his very succinct rebuttal to your proposal and idea of "deplatforming" "demonetization" and obviously "censorship" and "silencing". I implore you to find the time and either rebut those points one by one or you must contest that he is correct. I discussed with him the issue of abuse before and we see eye to eye on Self Governing/Anarchy (as in the Declaration and Definitive Treaty of Peace) and on the issue of downvoting not being censorship. I didn't realize though, that the proposal was even more taxing on the would be jurors, in effect censoring them for not participating which again only introduces more problems and it prevents nothing.
You remakerd that the content distribution on here is nowhere near what is on Facebook and such, saying something about how steem has far too many selfies, but I'm not sure that's the case at all. The content distribution is skewed in other ways, primarily because this is censorship proof, to the conspiracy crowd, or more appropriately to those that investigate and disenimate their finding against very powerful people and groups, and they get far more air time in ratio to the rest of the content than they do on any of those platforms, while more importantly on here a group of people are unbreakable, and soon enough it will be even more convenient to group and equally as unbreakabl, whereas on any of those "pl
atforms" you either fall pray to Ban Hammer Happy power tripping in the actual groups feature and/or clear censorship from both the users and the "plaublishers" , and finally from there all together and the later is pretty much de facto from what I hear, "what you're against vaccination!Boot".
.
The other way it is skewed, is that on those platforms the bread and butter is in extroverted "living" one status update at a time and on here the introverts have a chance to status update, since who wants to pander to "this is what I did today" all - the - time.. I imagine that there's still good ideas being floated under the watchful discression of "plaublishers" and under the noses of "envy my life" #nvos.
Steem has a more robust future than any of those "platforms" have in their current state because no one can simply delete ones group or page or get the boot, and when people have had enough they will stop pandering to the NV crowd and start experimenting with describing their perspectives instead of their "day",and they'll do it on here or on a platform that resembles what we have right now.
Posted using Partiko Android
I remember your post vividly. Although I am aware of all the problems you addressed, it still scared the sh*t out of me, lol.
EOS, once again, did what they are good at: creating hype and then come up with nothing. As a former (amateur) marketer, I kinda admire that they definitely know how to create a hype. The people here should learn from that. Except.... when you create a hype, you need to have something to show for when the moment comes. Once again, they didn't. It's tarting to get old, imo.
Maybe you sensed a little fear, but I think that was only true for a small percentage of the people here.
If I would have to answer your question, I'd say: of course they will. Because that's what théy are good at. Up there in that ivory tower, they are immune to what's going on down here - so why would they have care?
Again: of course not
I lost hope that the bigger part of the top of the Steem foodchain would eventually come to their senses a long time ago. Too much money and power involved :0(
I do hope they prove me wrong, though...
@simplymike,
One of these days, it will be the last "last chance."
Quill
Yup I totally predicted this one. I am psychic, sometimes I will just channel up a post and it will tell future. I need to get my psychic abilities triggered first though, which is what your post did for me last week! Thanks!
@coininstant,
Do your talents work on lottery tickets by any chance? At this point, that would seem like the best plan. A "crypto-backed social media platform," absent the crypto. Now there's something most people wouldn't have thought of. I guess that's why they get paid the big bucks. :-)
Quill
At least Steem have some times ahead to make this ecosystem a better place for everyone!
@chesatochi,
ALL of us will need to keep the pressure on. Even the most mundane things seem to take forever to accomplish. Such inability to Concentrate Force and execute is decentralization's Achilles Heel.
Quill
That was an enjoyable read. I wasn’t overly hyped up over the June 1st announcement, however I was sort of excited. I made sure that at midnight I was sat in front of the computer ready to catch it when it broke. I hold a decent quantity of eos so with pen and paper in hand I eagerly awaited what all the fuss was about... so after watching probably one of the worse examples of public speaking (literally I believe though talented we probably have some undiagnosed autism with Larimer and co) I was left feeling a bit disappointed. Yes new innovations in key management, social media, hard pushes towards new block chain social media are exciting... but in regards to announcing it all?... well it could have been managed better. I do agree with the fact that there was noticeable anxiety in the Steem space before the announcement, and can’t help but wonder when a massive clobber will occur in regards to management of the many many looming problems we have here. Voice could down the line be that. Hasn’t fully launched yet so it’s a wait and see sort of thing. I have only just started reading your posts btw and I enjoy the balance and way you bring across good questions and points. Thank you for the enjoyable read and look forward to your future posts.
@mudcat36,
I have to admit, I was astonished ... and not in a good way. The whole point of conducting a $4.2 billion ICO was so that someone would finally have the capital to "do it right" ... like something we'd expect from a Fortune 500 company. I've seen far better performances in High School theatrical productions.
The actual announcement aside: Supposedly one of the world's leading cryptocurrency production teams released a crypto-backed social media platform ... that wasn't crypto backed! Tokens whose only use is to amp comments! Are you kidding me? That's what's supposed to attract millions of worldwide users!
The problem is that these computer guys have never lived in the real world and seem incapable of distinguishing between that which is saleable from that which is not. They can't seem to empathize with people sufficiently to be able to intuit their reactions (which speaks to your comment about potential spectrum disorders). I'm not saying any of this to be mean, I'm saying it because it constitute's a systemic risk.
What I'm desperately hoping is that this was a close enough brush with death that it scared STEEM/Steemit Whales and Witnesses into getting serious about reforms.
Please be Scared Whales. Please be Scared Whales.
Quill
“As useless as tits on a bull” 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 OMG man you hit the nail on the head
-zero fungibility
-zero liquidity
-mandatory KYC
-no ability to produce coins from staking, you have to literally give the tokens away to be able to upvote
-not even available yet (EOS likes to take forever to do anything)
Absolutely terrible, I can’t wait for it to be the inevitable failure it is destined to be.
@alexvanaken,
Well, I suppose by setting the bar low ... they've got nowhere to go but up. Clever. :-)
Quill
Well I was gone for 2 weeks when the news dropped. I have not signed up yet, but I will. I have not given up on EOS or Voice yet. I am still up on my coins :) and sounds like there will be money made on Voice.
https://thecryptoreport.com/block-one-ceo-expects-50-100-million-payday-for-top-influencers-on-eos-voice/
@old-guy-photos,
I read the article you attached. Again, no mention as to HOW anyone would make money under the current arrangement. As I mentioned in my article, Larimer ended his speech with a nebulous reference about Voice Tokens being able to do other things, other than juicing your comments on other people's posts, in the future. Well, that doesn't mean squat.
This was/is a ridiculous marketing strategy. A HUGE amount of attention was focused on EOS and that attention could have been used to great effect to instantly elevate Voice ... had there been a real product to elevate. How does Voice help the army of content creators who are desperately awaiting a crypto-based social media platform ... that compensates creators based upon the quality of their content?
It's as if all these Crypto Devs, including many on Steemit, are trying to undo the expectation of content creators making money (unless you're Taylor Swift and then, presumably, getting a piece of ad revenue ) ... so that they can keep it all for themselves.
Quill
Apparently from the recent interviews with Dan, the tokens can not be bought by the creators, they have to be earned. Then they can be sold to advertisers that want to voice their product or idea. Agreed it could have been done better as far as the timing. It is always like the announcement of the announcement lol.
@old-guy-photos,
Hey Ol' Guy.
I've spent hours and hours scrolling through post-launch Telegram posts [including those by Brendan Blumer (CEO) and Dan Larimer (CTO)], videos and interviews. Clearly, there IS an intent to make Voice Tokens "saleable" in exchange for fiat/other cryptos (saleable to advertisers and, perhaps, others as well). What seems to be the hang-up (I'm connecting the dots) is regulatory approval in the US.
B1 has hired Holland & Knight is Washington as "Lobbyists" and this is telling (H&K was my law firm when I managed hedge funds ... they are a Top Drawer securities law firm). Obviously, they're not "lobbyists" as that terms is normally understood. My guess is that they've been retained to work with the SEC to hammer out a "compliant model" (for, I'm guessing, trading Voice Tokens on an EOS "internal exchange").
This is actually a VERY GOOD development ... they're doing it right even if it's a pain in the ass (and, I promise you, very expensive).
So ... why announce Voice on June 1 instead of waiting for the details to be worked out? My guess is that they announced their BIG JUNE 1 ANNOUNCEMENT ... and then got blind-sided by some of the recent SEC crackdowns. I've been arguing for 18 months that these crypto smarty-pantses (including on STEEM/Steemit) were going to get their asses handed to them (gonna "Stick it to the Man") ... and now it's happening. Pucker up cryptoworld ... you're going to kiss The Man's ass and play by the rules (just like everyone else has to) ... or it will be off to jail/bankruptcy court (or both) in defiance. Wait and see.
That said, a great deal of this could have, and should have, been explained on June 1. Instead, they remained silent and looked like fools in the process. Hopefully one of the lessons they learn from this experience is one I learned many decades ago: Keep your mouth shut until you can deliver ... and then over-deliver.
In any event, I've signed up for Beta and will start posting the first day I can.
Quill
Yes, very good! There is a lot to learn behind the scenes it seems. Very likely the EOS folks caught wind of the SEC suit against KIK for $100 mill and figured they best dot all the i's and cross all the t's lol!!!
https://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2019/comp-pr2019-87.pdf
Yes I saw where Brendan Blumer said that they want to bring over influencers. Basically if a guy has 100 mil subs and could bring over 50 mil, he would likely make 50 million bucks... Maybe a referral type of thing, not sure, but clearly there is an intent for there to be monetization of sorts. IOW too soon to call it dead on arrival IMO.
@old-guy-photos,
Absolutely right. Indeed, it would appear as if Voice has solved ALL the major systemic problems plaguing Steemit:
Multiple-Account-Self-Upvoting ... they've elminated the ability to have multliple accounts.
Bidbots. There appears to be no way to delegate votes and hence destroying bidbots on the back-end.
Curation. They've created a "Curation System" that is damnably innovative, if not ingenious. If you think about it for a couple of hours (minutes ARE NOT enough as there are many feedback loops created), you begin to realize that the forces elevating "Quality Content" will be quite substantial ... and self re-enforcing.
Abusive DownVoting.The "whales" will be, effectively, real-world advertisers who will have ZERO interest in engaging in stupid flagging wars lest they alienate potential customers.
There are only two potential Achilles Heels that I can identify at the moment (with, admittedly, incomplete information):
1.) The Voice Token HAS to be liquid or none of this works. And for it to be liquid, it will require specific approval from the SEC. While this is likely sooner or later, waiting around on governments can be patience-testing. Personally, I think they should have delayed the Announcement until they had secured approval. Too late.
.
2.) The entire edifice is EXTREMELY reliant upon securing a critical mass of users ... QUICKLY. And hence, their plan to simply "buy an audience" by soliciting Big Influencers from other social media platforms. I have some extreme doubts, however, whether a 50% sign-up rate of Big Influencers' followers (as theoretically posited by Blumer) is even close to realistic. A LOT of those Twitter followers are followers in "name only.' If you look at the people I follow on Twitter, for example, they include a litany of high-profile people who would exercise ZERO influence over my decisions about anything. I followed them for a number of reasons including because they followed me. Others, because they were fellow poets or authors, almost none of whom I have any interaction. The same phenomenon occurs on Steemit ... what percentage of your followers actually follow you? 5% at the most (probably less)? How many of those do you have enough interaction with to reasonably expect to be able to exert an influential role? For me, such number would be in the dozens.
Quill