Distributing what the centralized won't

I wrote a post yesterday talking a little about my Steem earnings and a few other factors that surround them and the community as a whole. What I think a lot of people assume is that content production on Steem is different to content production for other platforms and that difference is, everything can earn. While technically true, it is not necessarily so.

The earners on other platforms are actually a very narrow slice of the user base, and on a platform like YouTube with 2 billion users, I would assume that there isn't even one percent of them earning, let alone earning something significant. The reason is that if we think on the "one percent" function, that would mean that every content creator would only need 100 supporters to earn, and since it isn't stake based, that is not the way it is going to work.

YouTube earnings are based predominantly on volume of clicks, so niche content will struggle there as well, as it will only be attractive to a small percentage of the two billion - luckily they have so many users as they can push tailored content to them so some will earn over others - play favorites. Better stay in favor though, as demonetization is just a click away. This click-based earning model is also what drives outrage and drama, as that is what gets the attention of the average user.

The thing is that while only a fraction of content creators will earn anything of significance on the centralized platforms, the platforms themselves can earn massive amounts and must do, in order to satisfy the needs of the organization and shareholders. Steem has no overheads, no board of directors and no shareholders, but it does have stakeholders.

This creates a very unique difference for Steem over the centralized platforms, but for many of the content creators, it is business as usual as they have to develop and offer content that attracts the attention of the audience, but not necessarily volume of clicks as it is possible to attract volume of stake. For many, this seems unfair, but it is not so different from other platforms that leverage clicks on adverts.

If a user has lots of followers on YouTube and gets lots of clicks, the advertiser is going to pay - but if that user doesn't attract click-throughs from people who are willing to buy the product advertised, it is a waste of advertising budget. Essentially, an advertiser wants their adverts to be seen by stakeholders who are willing to pay for their product, not randoms who aren't.

But, what is very unique on Steem is that while I as a content creator can present my content to the audience and attract stake, that stake gets a kickback for its consumption, and while there is some game in the curation, stake can get a similar kickback on any content. This means that I as a content contributor have to be able to attract the attention of stake and maintain that attention in order to earn consistently from creation, as the stake itself can pick and choose freely where it directs its portion of the inflation pool.

This "kickback" is much like the earnings that YouTube will direct to itself as the owner and centralized controller of the platform, and they direct the majority of it back to themselves. There is a reason why Zuckerberg can be worth 70 billion by offering a product for free, as Facebook doesn't have to pay any of the content creators, other than those who write to FUD the narrative. Because the inflation pool is spread to all participants in various ways, a great deal more people can be included in the earning model, even though not many of them are going to earn significantly.

It is highly unlikely that any one user on Steem will become a billionaire from their Steem holdings, but the potential for many millionaires is possible. This is because of the decentralized nature of the environment and the fact that there is not one person who can control the value and move it only toward themselves.

A stake like @Freedom has a lot of influence, but even that is massively overpowered by the stake of the entire community, something that Zuckerberg doesn't have to worry about, he can pretty much do as he pleases as it is his company. Yes, I know there are laws and limitations, but you get the idea. On Steem, there is no whale that can't be counteracted by the community as a whole. That is quite interesting.

While for the average content creator looking to earn on Steem, there is very little difference from what they might need to do on other platforms from a work perspective (and there is nothing to stop monetization on many fronts), consumers actually have the potential to earn here, something they don't really anywhere else. And, that earning can be significant, if one has significant stake.

While some people who create content do not think it is fair that people earn curation on the hard work they offer, there are curators who feel that they have bought their stake and deserve more, much like the Zuck does. It is another part of the game in Steem and there are more variables to play with than just curation percentage of course. However, what it does do is continually find a balance of value between content as a curator can vote on anything and earn, but will be best served by voting on what increases the value of their held tokens, which is usually what will attract attention of others, whether in volume of clicks like YouTube might, or volume of stake by way of investors.

Essentially, stakeholders are best served by increasing the development and interest in Steem at as many entry points as possible, while content creators looking to earn are best served by attracting stake. That middle point is where the content that gets supported is the content that stakeholders feel adds value to their investment, and often this requires some diversity of topics. Some content creators can do exactly what they do on other platforms and earn on Steem, others have to offer very different.

For me, while I can put a photo on Facebook and Instagram and get a like or three, doing the same here is unlikely to attract any attention from real stake holders as it wouldn't be seen as value adding, if that is all I did. Someone else might attract a great deal of support for doing exactly that though. Content creators generally need to find their niche and build their following, whether it is on Steem or any number of the other platforms.

What is very unique on Steem is that a content creator can also be a content consumer who earns on both sides of the equation, something that can only be indirectly and insensitively done on centralized platforms by buying stocks in the company. Those stocks cost money, and they are content agnostic.

Some people think that content creators aren't willing to buy into Steem or crypto in order to earn and support themselves in other ways, and while I think that might be the case for some, others are learning better. The value of investing into Steem as a content creator is that it allows for interaction and support of others who are also content creators, while still encouraging earning from content creation. It is about being an owner of one's personal experience and future value.

People who want to earn crypto also want the value of what they earn to increase, and by owning stake a user can encourage that to happen by supporting other producers and generating attention on the ecosystem as a whole. Those who aren't willing to build (especially in the early days) the community for others and only care about their own earnings are eventually going to find themselves out in the cold, without stake. The reason is that in an attention economy, to consistently earn one not only needs to consistently produce, but produce content that will get consistent attention. This is a tall ask for anyone long-term in a dynamic space.

Eventually, pretty much all content producers run out of ideas that garner attention from the audience and if they haven't built a safety net to support themselves, it is much like the actor who snorted their earnings and no longer gets given parts to play.

While you might agree or not, I think there is a lot in here that can be considered and a lot that can be discussed. In my opinion though, the strength of Steem is in the ownership of the infrastructure that allows anyone in and allows for all kinds of content to be supported, given time for stake to move across interest areas of users. We are still in the early adoption phase, which requires investment and long-term strategy if wanting to be part of the future.

You think crypto is the future but aren't willing to buy some? I hope you can attract some attention.

Taraz
[ a Steem original ]