Now that the recent Steemit updates involving how Steem is distributed have been in place for a while I think the results of the update are interesting. These results are based on my own observations of the Steemit platform.
The original intention of the recent Steemit updates were to reduce self-voting and botting and to encourage curation. This was done by changing the reward split of a post to 50%-50%, so that whatever Steem a post earns is divided evenly between the author and the curators. The explanation for this was that it would encourage more people to curate because curation rewards would be increased, and because more people were curating people would get more votes and end up making more Steem overall.
They also changed the point at which posts start earning Steem from getting votes.
It seems all this has resulted in a further reduction of activity on Steemit. Before this change people had already been leaving the platform and now it looks like that’s accelerated. Since the update I’ve seen even more Steemit users who were active before the update powering down and reducing their activity almost completely.
The bottom line is that with the new update people are earning even less Steem than before, even with Steem Engine tokens factored in. I’ve heard some reports that some people are earning marginally more curation rewards than before but curation rewards aren’t enough to keep someone on the platform. The curation rewards are divided among all the curators, they’re tiny, and they go straight to Steem Power so they’re not really even usable. If you want to actually use your curation rewards as Steem you have to go through the process of powering down your Steem Power first which takes quite a while.
When this particular update was first proposed many people opposed it, saying that it wouldn’t really do anything to address the issues the Steem team claimed it was meant to address… with some saying those issues weren’t actually issues in the first place… and instead claimed it would further drive people away from the platform. They suggested the Steem team should instead focus on making it easier and more attractive for new users to join the platform. It looks like they were right.
This is one of the problems with a cryptocurrency having central control. Even though when it comes to Steemit and the Steem network the users can vote on and elect “Witnesses” which are supposed to represent their interests and desires, and those Witnesses then vote or act upon the various Steem proposals, the underlying system is still relatively centralized, meaning when the team decides to make a change like this and the Witnesses go along with it, it effects the entire network which in turn effects the value of Steem itself.
Things like this certainly make other platforms which are based around one of the standard independent cryptocurrencies more attractive, because whatever those platforms do it won’t effect the underlying value of the cryptocurrency itself.
While Steem remains an interesting idea and it’s still worth watching, it seems like repeated mismanagement hasn’t done it any favors.
