Why Steemit, Inc. NEEDS to Increase the Community Creation Fee

in #steemleolast year

Screen Shot 2019-10-15 at 11.01.06 AM.png

@pennsif’s tribe.talk episode yesterday featured @elipowell, @roadscape and @jongolson. They talked about the launch of communities and how they will work in the beginning.

One of the other topics brought up is the cost of creating a community. Creating a community is basically the same process as creating a new account with a few other minor formatting details. The cost of doing so is 3 STEEM, which is ultimately burned.

The price of 3 STEEM is currently about $0.40 USD.

Does $0.40 seem like a fair price to launch an entire community on the Steemit interface?

In the real world, $0.40 is about the amount of money I pay to the parking meter to have my car sit in front of Starbucks for 2 hours. It’s about 1/4th the cost for me to then go into Starbucks and buy a cup of coffee.

Does it seem reasonable that creating a community — which can be likened to essentially launching a business — costs 1/4 the amount that it would for me to buy a cup of coffee?

That makes absolutely no sense. The fallouts of having such a low barrier to entry are some the are known and many that are unknown:

  1. Name squatting — if creating a community is so cheap, why not squat the name of hundreds… thousands of online businesses?
  2. Community Creation Spam — if I were to venture I guess, I would say that within 48 hours of the launch of communities, there will be well over 1,000 communities created by less than 100 people
  3. Waste of an Opportunity
  4. … unknown impacts of a low barrier to entry

This third point is the most important one in my mind. We have all been taking about how STEEM’s inflation rate is too high. How there is such a small amount of burning happening on this blockchain. We also now have the @steem.dao.

We have two different opportunities here —> we can burn more STEEM or we can send more STEEM to the DAO. Why would we not capitalize on that opportunity as a blockchain?

Ultimately, this is Steemit’s product and it’s on their website. Communities are not a fundamental blockchain development and with tribes, communities are actually an inferior product.

Regardless, competition is good. Options are great. We’re finally seeing some progress out of Steemit, Inc. toward the vision that was laid out over two years ago.

How Much Should We Charge for Community Creation?

If I want to launch a business in the U.S., it can range from hundreds to tens of thousands of dollars, depending on the structure of the business you launch.

Forming an LLC costs $500 and a $250 annual fee. The fee for a corporation varies, but is usually $125 to start and $100 annually. Illinois offers a wide variety of business structures.

This is actually an annual fee. Forming an LLC doesn’t actually do much for you. It’s simply a starting point and then it’s up to you to build the rest of your infrastructure and business. Essentially, it’s a “tax” for the simple ability to start.

Starting a community on Steemit is very similar. You’re launching a business or maybe you’re already an existing community elsewhere on the internet and you want to come to Steem to build a web 3.0-enabled community on the blockchain with proof of brain tokenization.

I said this in chat during the conversation —> if you’re starting a community, $100 should be pocket change to you. People who can’t afford to pay $100 to start, probably shouldn’t have a community anyways.

With that said, I think $100 worth of STEEM should be burned or sent to the @steem.dao or maybe even a combination of the two in some sort of pay split. This would have the effect of burning STEEM and combatting inflation and/or funding further development of the blockchain.

Some people think that $100 is too much to start a community.. I think that’s utterly ridiculous. Even @roadscape said on the show that we should focus on the cream of the crop — the communities that actually have some sort of promise.

Why not create a barrier to entry that automatically filters out 90% of the shit-communities that people would create if the cost was 1/4th what it costs to buy a cup of coffee?

The entire Steem blockchain is a decentralized cooperation of people. If you want to use our facilities, then there should be some cost to doing so. Similar to how a government might charge tolls to use highways or how I have to pay a parking meter to park in my town when I want to shop at a store or sit at Starbucks.

This is a source of funding for my local government. It’s how they keep the roads clean, the streets safe and fund the development of local schools.

Why shouldn’t we think of Steem in the same way? As a government body that needs to source funding for further development? Why charge $0.40 for something when you can charge $100 and actually make it a better environment because there will be less spam and name squatting?

Just to tie a nice bow on this, I think Steemit, Inc. should charge $100 worth of STEEM for community creation and send 50% to @null and the other 50% to the @steem.dao to support the price of STEEM and further the development of this blockchain.

As the STEEM price goes lower, it costs more STEEM to create a community, because the supply is less scarce.

As the STEEM price goes higher, it costs less STEEM to create a community, because the supply is more scarce.

Seems like rather basic economics to me. Two of the most important focus points on this blockchain should be funding further DAO developments and reducing the overall supply of STEEM.

Sort:  

Yes, it should be at least 1000 STEEM or more.

No, it shouldn't.

more domination for the whales. wooo.

Social mindset: something costs too much; it has to be cheaper. No. If something is valuable, it should have a price and if you can't afford, then work until you can.

I'm not saying that communities have to cost 1000 STEEM, but we should implement a system, similar to the domain-naming system, where valuable keywords costs more. Otherwise, there will be squatters who take away thousands of valuable keywords.

And by the way, @yabapmatt is running one of the only business models on Steem which has a thriving ecosystem (Splinterlands). If there's someone you should listen to, it's matt.

if you can't afford, then work until you can

This thread is full of people worried about adopting masses into Steem and how not spending enough money will... what, make it seem like a childish platform? What planet are you people from?

Work until you can, is just about the best way to drive away mass amounts of people. Like the mindset or not, it's the fucking truth.


I like your addition of a keyword system though. It could be a good middle-ground between our two differing views.

(Also, not to be antagonistic, but just because someone runs a successful business doesn't mean you should listen to them. "Appeal to authority" / "Listen to the top" is the most blanket & pointless statement I hear often nowadays.)

Work until you can, is just about the best way to drive away mass amounts of people. Like the mindset or not, it's the fucking truth.

Steem has been advertised as a platform with free-handouts. "Come to Steem, contribute and earn free money", which was a good way to attract masses of people who simply opened up their hands. But they're the same people who cry about Steem being ruled by whales. Truth is: the world is being ruled by power. And money (regardless of FIAT or CRYPTO) is just another form of power.

Selling Steem short by giving things away for free didn't work out, which is why I don't think it's smart to give away communities for 0.4 USD. Instead, IMO this will simply result in people not valuing the underlying product. It doesn't need to be 1000 STEEM, but it should be at least 5$ or 10$. If you don't have that, you're lying to yourself.

(Also, not to be antagonistic, but just because someone runs a successful business doesn't mean you should listen to them. "Appeal to authority" / "Listen to the top" is the most blanket & pointless statement I hear often nowadays.)

I'm not referring to them running a business. I'm referring to the fact that matt, aggroed and the rest of the Splinterlands team, created a thriving ecosystem, which has steadily gained in value. Even their own currency DEC has enough sinks to hold its value. Which is why their opinion should be valued.

Everyone's opinion should be valued, but I'm just saying that referring to their past (and tbf, current) success in spite of what they are actively saying is sorta a moot point. I look at what is being presented to me currently, which is a guy saying 1,000 STEEM should be the cost which, regardless of his history on this platform, is a crazy fucking idea to spout out.

We're not selling Steem short by "giving away" communities for cheap, we're lowering the barrier to entry. The reason Steem hasn't hit mass-adoption even though we've been signaling the "free handouts" as you call them, isn't because of them, but in spite of them. Steem never succeeded due to low levels of marketing, crypto-confusion to normies, fears of ponzi-schemes (which surely isn't helped by charging high fees for something literally every other community-based site offers for free), and an overall lack of clarity as to why the platform is special.

We need options for people to freely & easily hop aboard, poke around, try things out, and not be afraid to do things. Charging high fees for creating a community goes against this philosophy.

We're not selling Steem short by "giving away" communities for cheap, we're lowering the barrier to entry.

And in reality, what is the ACTUAL cost of making a community? Pennies? If that. Plus they need RC credits and thus need to hold Steem anyways. The more communities there are the more Steem that is being taken out of circulation. Making them expensive makes 0 sense and it's bad for everyone.

Hear hear, let's not ignore that aggroed just posted a, picture of a double rainbow and less than 20 words at a value of 20 dollars. This place is not worth discussing..

Posted using Partiko Android

Agreed, the lower steem is valued the more it will be burned. We want communities to be attractive enough that it would create a good burn rate for steem. $0.40 or 3 steem would be way too low. If it's fixed to a specific dollar value and steem goes up in value, all you have to do is hold on to your steem till you can afford a community. Any name 5-6 characters or under should be sold at a premium price. Like if you tried to register "zap" you would pay 10,000-20,000 steem or something.

For non-premium names maybe $25-50 worth of steem.

How valuable is it really? Because right now, I'd say things aren't exactly looking very good for Steem in terms of users activity.

And how can they squat them if the communities are numerical ID's?

if you can't afford, then work until you can

Sure, it's easy to say work until you can. I'm not sure how well traveled you are, but you and I are from wealthy countries. Most of the world can't and that's a harsh truth. And they're supposed to be one of the primary benefactors of crypto. At least, that was the idea many years ago.

The increased barrier to entry just prevents more adoption. And no offense to @yabapmatt but, he's running a card game not the entire Steem platform. The work he's doing is great, but it's apples and oranges to what we're talking about here. Also, I didn't know Steem itself was supposed to have a profit driven model? I thought the witnesses were paid for their job to keep the chain up and running, no?

I agree, it should cost far more than three STEEM, which is 40 cents. 1000 STEEM seems reasonable, until the token value rises. Nobody will want to start a community for $5000, then the value drops, and the next member starts a community for $2500. I'm thinking the cost should be set in US dollars so the cost stays the same. Make it far more expensive than 40 cents, indeed, but a reasonable and consistent cost as well.

Why? How does that benefit anyone? You're adding another barrier to entry on a platform already dominated by whales. Most of the world is dirt poor too and this is all being compared to and priced in USD. It makes 0 sense. The price should be 100% determined on the cost to the network and that's it.

And as far as I know, the name squatting thing isn't even an issue based on how the system runs. So, that point shouldn't even be considered in the argument.

We'll have to find the happy middle ground. Making it too expensive is just as unwise as making it too cheap. A set cost is important. Someone could set up thousands of accounts for 3 steem each, at 40 cents, then sell those accounts for less than the cost of the three steem accounts in the future if the value increases, undercutting the source, and making a huge profit. Not good, especially if that source is designed to be beneficial to the economy as a whole.

A community should be able to gather enough resources to pay for their community, if they're poor. It doesn't have to be too expensive or overly expensive to the point only the wealthy can do it.

Who cares if they sell accounts for more in the future? That's what happens when you're the first to adopt a technology. You benefit from that.

But, again it seems like you're assuming these accounts have names which they will not. The accounts are numbers. The name squatting is not an issue. So, the only way I could see your argument actually taking place is if people were selling communities that they built up. Otherwise, it would only be worth the cost of creating one.

I'm not assuming the accounts have names. On the contrary. The accounts don't have names, so therefore, unless I'm mistaken, someone could purchase many accounts and sell those accounts for cheaper than the cost from the source, and the one purchasing could then name it and carry on much like they could if they purchased from the source.

"Who cares!" Obviously you care.

Think:

  • You don't want this to be dominated by whales
  • A whale comes and purchases many accounts.
  • That whale sells accounts, undercutting the source
  • The whale makes all the money
  • No more STEEM is getting burned to create accounts.
  • Because those wishing to create a community can simply purchase an account from the whale who's undercutting the source.
  • The whale makes all the money.
  • Steem and the community as whole does not benefit from the creation of communities, the one selling accounts is the only one making a personal profit.

Maybe I'm missing something? Maybe this problem has already been addressed? I still think a set cost would be beneficial, so one could not set up a community today for 40 cents, and someone down the road must spend $15 because the value of Steem spiked. The only way the source could be undercut is if the cost isn't set and consistent. The value of Steem fluctuates, therefore, someone could undercut the source, unless the cost of a community account remains the same, regardless of the value of the token.

I'm not assuming the accounts have names. On the contrary. The accounts don't have names, so therefore, unless I'm mistaken, someone could purchase many accounts and sell those accounts for cheaper than the cost from the source, and the one purchasing could then name it and carry on much like they could if they purchased from the source.

If they purchase the accounts and sell them cheaper, they're losing money.

Why would someone buy a bunch of accounts and sell them cheaper? That makes no sense at all. They're losing money to accomplish what exactly? Unless you mean they buy the accounts, then hold them and hope the value increases, then sell them cheaper and make a profit. I mean, I guess that's a risk/reward thing. But, a set cost could fix that easily.

Also, I agree with a set cost given the current volatility of crypto. But, I think the set cost should be based on whatever it costs the network to create the community. Maybe plus a couple percent to throw into the DAO too. Raising the cost just for the sake of raising it as the OP suggests is just plain stupid though.

"Who cares!" Obviously you care.

Also, my "who cares" was in response to people buying a lot of communities. They still need RC and thus Steem to run them, so it would benefit us all in the end.

If they purchase the accounts and sell them cheaper, they're losing money.

If I purchase 1000 accounts today at three steem each, that'll cost about $400. If the value of Steem rises, it still costs 3 STEEM to create a community account, but I could sell accounts for 2 Steem, and make a profit, because 2 STEEM then is worth more than the 3 STEEM were worth when the account was purchased. If steem was worth $5 each, $15 would be needed in order to create a community account, but I could sell accounts for $10. I could sell 40 of my 1000 accounts for $400, and still have 960 accounts to sell.

Do you see now how you're missing the point and just yelling at the clouds?

"But a set cost would fix that." Yes! And that's all I'm saying! LOL! Damn.

You also need to realize that having people create a ton of communities benefits Steem holders. They need to hold Steem to utilize them. Raising the cost will ultimately affect the potential value of Steem.

You have to consider competition as well. Why come here and pay to create these communities when they can do it on Reddit or elsewhere for free? Sure, you can make a little money. But, it's not easy and the money made by most people on here isn't enough to keep them here. Just look at the amount of active users here. Not very many.

A community should be able to gather enough resources to pay for their community, if they're poor. It doesn't have to be too expensive or overly expensive to the point only the wealthy can do it.

Yes, they need Steem which gives them RC credits. That's how the communities are able to run. This all ties back to communities needing to hold Steem. Thus increasing the value of Steem. So having a higher barrier of entry to just creating the community is a terrible idea and will hurt us all at the end of the day.

Btw, sorry for all the replies. I'm on my phone and it was easier to sort out my thoughts this way lol.

Too many replies, and we're going all over the place. I'm saying if there's a cost (there is) it should be a set to one dollar value and remain consistent.

You can have your opinions about the place and everything else but that doesn't change the reality of the situation.

No, it should be free!

Hi @yabapmatt

I agree with you.

If we want to encourage serious businesses to enter STEEM, then we need to forget about providing all services for ... pennies. That's simple as that. Steemit need to decide: do they want to make build business or do they want to give something average to average mass consumer and earn average revenue.

I agree that 3 Steem creation fee is too low in general. I would rather like to see a requirement to hold Steempower in the main Community account in order to stay active. The amount of Steempower to be hold in the main account depends on the size of the community. Lets say per 1000 users maybe 100 Steempower for example.
Instead of forcing people to pay a certain price for creating a community I would rather like to see requirements for the certain size of each community.

On the blockchain, communities have a numerical identifier - so no name squatting issue.

I think you are operating under the assumption that communities are exactly like tribes, but, they are actually very different products.

and with tribes, communities are actually an inferior product.

That is a bold statement when talking about a product that hasn't been released yet. With communities having moderation features, I don't believe that it is anywhere close to being an inferior product. It's more like the next evolution of how we do social media on a blockchain without everyone being in the same big 'bucket'. It's also quite possibly an excellent solution for content discovery which is currently a challenge with all of the focus on a global 'trending' page which tends to often be overrun by the same topic (Steem and Steemit) even with 'honest' voting being much more common after HF21/22. Being able to subscribe to communities/topics that you like to regularly see is quite a powerful feature.

However, communities could certainly be used in the way that tribes are used by running a custom interface along with their own token, but, that likely won't be the most common application for them. Running your own interface and token could be likened to 'running a business' as you have explained and using them in this way would certainly come with additional infrastructure and operating costs, just like tribes do.

How much does it cost to make a subreddit? 🙂

Thank you for your feedback and this post - I appreciate the passion and care in regards to new developments on the Steem blockchain.

Creating a sub reddit is free. Do you want users or be known for charges and fees?

☝️

Yep. This 🙂

People who can’t afford to pay $100 to start, probably shouldn’t have a community anyways.

Wtf? What a horrible mindset to have. Here I was loving how open & accessible things like the internet, open software, blockchain + crypto, and Steem included, made things. I'm here to champion for a more open & accessible space, not another "pay up you fucker" type of environment.

Feels so strange that you think this way since your very own words:

If I want to launch a business in the U.S., it can range from hundreds to tens of thousands of dollars, depending on the structure of the business you launch.

Are the exact reason I want Steem to be different. The current method sucks. Break down the barriers, allow anyone who wants to create a community come in and create one!

Plus, I think with the whole "name-squatting" thing you're missing a critical ancedote: Reddit
Creating sub-reddits is free, and Reddit has about a bajillion more users than Steem. Even still, it's not too hard to get a name you want on there.


All that being said, if the price was raised to $1 - $3, I wouldn't be opposed. Especially if it went to the dao, that was a good idea.

I agree with you.

People who can’t afford to pay $100 to start, probably shouldn’t have a community anyways.

That is a very pompous and airheaded statement. Most of the world is poor. Lack of money doesn't mean lack of ideas, potential, or value. This statement really has me questioning what kind of person you are. Wow. Disgusting.

Plus, I think with the whole "name-squatting" thing you're missing a critical ancedote: Reddit
Creating sub-reddits is free, and Reddit has about a bajillion more users than Steem. Even still, it's not too hard to get a name you want on there.

This. Steem is already dominated by whales. Raising the barrier to entry on anything is completely asinine. The community is already small. How do you expect to grow when there are free alternatives out there.

I'm really questioning how much thought other than greed and stupidity went into the OP's post.

100%

Always be careful when making broad-stroke callouts on large groups of people. OP is apparently able to drop hundreds of dollars to startup every little idea they have, good for them. Many people can't.

We should encourage the "start from nothing, rise to greatness" ideology on here, not shout against it. That almost feels opposite to the entire idea of crypto, blockchain, and the internet as a whole!

Dear @stuffbyspencer, @treepi

I unfortuantelly agree with @khaleelkazi. We cannot expect to keep receiving great things done and pay pennies. That would never allow to cover dev expenses. Simple as that.

Are the exact reason I want Steem to be different. The current method sucks. Break down the barriers, allow anyone who wants to create a community come in and create one!

That's absolutely nightmare. If anyone could do it, then you can be sure that serious businesses will avoid STEEM at all cost. Simple as that.

Yours,
Piotr

I can't disagree with this more. Open-source software has proved this model already. Free things =/= bad things.

This is the internet, notorious for fast & scalable & lowcost solutions. There are legit money-making subreddits out there which, again, are completely free to setup.

Paying for communities isn't helping cover dev expenses as is. Burning STEEM doesn't feed developers, at least not directly enough. We need to think of a new way to go about that, communities should not be in that discussion.

Although I agree the fee could be higher and we could all benefit from that, I also find it problematic to price these things in USD. I've always viewed 3 Steem as becoming a lot of value in the future due to massive gains/volatility.

In my opinion, the price of these services should be determined by how much stress they put on the network, not some arbitrary artificial scarcity number we came up with based on legacy fiat.

So, if it is going to be 3 STEEM per community, we will soon see Thousands of communities trying to do similar things owned by many people.

STEEMHUNT1234
STEEMHUNT4321
STEEMHUNT3214
STEEMHUNT2143
STEEMHUNT1243
STEEMHUNT1234
....
....

Well then, I can start off a new community with any name and do anything I want now. Great.

Name squatting — if creating a community is so cheap, why not squat the name of hundreds… thousands of online businesses?

This is not going to be a thing. @roadscape has mentioned it's just going to be a number ID that can be named.

Community Creation Spam — if I were to venture I guess, I would say that within 48 hours of the launch of communities, there will be well over 1,000 communities created by less than 100 people

Again this seems based on your first point being what you thought it was, it won't matter if your community is the first or 1000th to be created, what matters is if you can get it attention and if users will want to use it.

Waste of an Opportunity

of what? to burn more steem, to send steem to the dao? doesn't look like a lot of authors are doing this in general so why force it onto something like communities.

… unknown impacts of a low barrier to entry

Yeah, good one.

Don't have time to read the full post atm but just wanted to point that out when it seems most was based on your first point.

I agree. Seems like a fumbled start lead into a bunch of wasted breath.

Is it possible there could be 10 HUNT coins for instance? ID# 4534, 24675, 3421, etc? Won’t that just be confusing, especially when trading on the open market? That would be a huge issue in my opinion.

**Edit: I am thinking of SMTs not communities. Woops but still might apply so I will leave the comment.

You’re launching a business

No you're not. You are launching a community.

lol, this 100%

Seems like people are a bit to entrepreneur-trigger-happy today & are thinking that every single fart that happens on Steem has to be some sort of business

Yes. The low cost made me cringe. I could earn enough with this comment, if I tried hard enough, to start up an entire community. I don't see how that low cost will bring in any outside money if these words are all it takes...

I see your point but I disagree. As you said, a community is basically an account with a few special features. I want a low barrier to entry. I want 10000 failures. That is how we will find the gold. A low barrier to entry is what leads to mass adoption. It allows for innovation from parties who couldn't afford to get involved otherwise. It worked with web 1.0 and 2.0.

I do think it should be doubled though, with 50% going to the dao.

I agree that 3 Steem creation fee is too low in general. I would rather like to see a requirement to hold Steempower in the main Community account in order to stay active. The amount of Steempower to be hold in the main account depends on the size of the community. Lets say per 1000 users maybe 100 Steempower for example.
Instead of forcing people to pay a certain price for creating a community I would rather like to see requirements for the certain size of each community.

I would rather like to see a requirement to hold Steempower in the main Community account in order to stay active.

Yep! I agree that some sort of requirement to hold as much Steempower in a community proportional to the amount of users and active members in it, have lotta more sense.

So, raise the barrier to entry on a platform that already is lacking in users and dominated by whales. Smart.

You're also assuming 3 Steem will always be worth about $0.40 which it won't. 2 years ago 3 Steem was over $20.

This post has been included in the 203rd edition of The Steem News - a compilation of the key news stories on the Steem blockchain.

!trdo

Congratulations @d-zero, you are successfuly trended the post that shared by @khaleelkazi!
@khaleelkazi will receive 0.02138400 TRDO & @d-zero will get 0.01425600 TRDO curation in 3 Days from Post Created Date!

"Call TRDO, Your Comment Worth Something!"

To view or trade TRDO go to steem-engine.com
Join TRDO Discord Channel or Join TRDO Web Site

Congratulations @khaleelkazi!
Your post was mentioned in the Steem Hit Parade in the following category:

  • Comments - Ranked 2 with 74 comments

Yeah I will probably have like 10 communities of my own. Naaa, 3 steem? Can't be right, we could as well make it free, but what good would that bring, it doesn't even sound like a serious stuff if its at that price, you say 100$ one time fee, I say 150$ and 50$ monthly charges.

lol, thats a great way to keep people around. then who's stopping someone from forking it and offering it for $0.40?

This is also all based on the assumption 3 Steem will always be worth ~$0.40 which it wont. Just 2 years ago 3 Steem was worth over $20.

This is also all based on the assumption 3 Steem will always be worth ~$0.40 which it wont. Just 2 years ago 3 Steem was worth over $20.

Yeah I kinda over exaggerated that and your're right about basing it on the value of steem,..anyway, it needs to be reviewed, thats all...

This is a great way to not have anyone want to create communities.

Coughs*...Exaggeration...we get it

Oh, were you being sarcastic? lol sorry, internet destroys contexts like that, my bad :^)

Thank you for posting from the https://steemleo.com interface 🦁

The annual fee is a great idea...and some states (like MA) are expensive. $500 to create, $500 annual report fee.

And yes, everyone and their brother is gonna create tons of communities to lock up names. I may speculate on a few if its gonna be that cheap. That price structure is a mistake.

Name squatting isn't a thing. It won't be possible.

Btw, why compare prices of the USA which is one of the most expensive countries in the world? This platform has people from all over the world. And most of it doesn't have much money.

Valid point. Maybe it will help steem community diversify further as it is currently very USA heavy. I'm hoping for growth regardless of where it comes from.

Yeah they need to focus on other markets. But, we need to onboard good users that speak those languages. There are a couple strong international communities on here though. I think Korea and Philippines are pretty active here.

The poorer markets have more to benefit from this platform. Earnings here may not be much to us in the US, but to someone in a poor country it could benefit them a lot.

Great article and totally agree. I don't know how much it cost to start a tribe, but I'm sure it wasn't much either...all I could think of was the ICO bust we saw a year ago will hit the tribe ecosystem where 95% of the tribes will fail as well within the next 3-9 months.

Another mistake from the top.

Than we'll need another Police squad to fight low quality communities.

agreed, better few valuable communities, than 1000 ghost towns.

...wtf?

Why are you "fighting" low quality communities? Just literally ignore them. If they're raping the reward pool, then you'd deal with them the same way we've been doing: Downvotes, blacklists, etc.

Communities mean nothing to the quality of Steem, other than we want people to feel free to come & create them.

If they're raping the reward pool, then you'd deal with them the same way we've been doing: Downvotes, blacklists, etc.

You said it. Here is the problem in the first place, my friend.
So you want infinite numbers of communities and than tell people what to write and whom to vote.
Good plan but I can tell you right away. It won't work.

Time will tell I guess, I find your point very valid. I won’t start a community for 3 or 3000 Steem, but if we don’t want to get spammed with “under water billiards community” or “people that look like pigs” crap, a higher entry point could be a good idea!

Posted using Partiko iOS

“under water billiards community” or “people that look like pigs”

This is exactly the thing. In the name of variety & mass onboarding, I reckon we specifically need way more communities with such inviting, appealing and charming names. };)

doesn't current price for creating tribe goes like 2000ENG which is 2000 STEEM
imo Steem account doesn't equal to Steem Community)
we need to onboard more people here to make STEEM more and more popular! Take a look at https://steemit.com/crypto/@stranger27/steem-btc-state-for-14-10-2019-ready-to-the-final-decline report. Steemit itself vs Steemmonsters

only 2500-3000 people. its really small world with a huge potential, we just need to push it out!

I get your point for spam prevention, but relying on this as a way to fund the SPS or even to burn some steem is ridiculous...

We want to encourage people to build as many communities as they can, because in the end, everyone starting a community will be working for STEEM. A community leader will try to bring over new users, which need STEEM to operate, so they buy and the price increases.

The value of STEEM is in the RC system, not in some burn for creating a community, you don't see big enough.

And for the spam, well, who are we to judge? If you don't like a community then do not join it. If you like it, join it. What if you become part of a community that has 5 users total (including the leader), should we just discard this community in the name of spam prevention?

What if a community starts by being useless, basically just spam, and then 10 years laters grows into something huge, something nobody expected? I think the 3 steem burn is great, 4 steem or 5 steem would be exactly the same, the point is just not to make it free (for extreme spam).

What if you become part of a community that has 5 users total (including the leader), should we just discard this community in the name of spam prevention?

Yeah! you even won't have to go too far to see how all this works out. Just take a quick peek to Discord or Steem.chat to confirm how all these 'communities' pans out.

Digital spaces of live interaction & engagement which doesn't cost a damn whatsoever to create as many communities as you wish. Btw. :)

The only good thing:

I'd make a community @khaleelkazi and you'd be on the VIP list! 👌😁

It would be a waist not to burn some Steem for creating a community. I think a yearly subscription model could do well. STINC needs to take the burn opportunities they can get

3 steem??? What are they thinking.

For sure should not be 3 steem... but also not 1000 steem because that can become really expensive at some point if and when steem goes up.

Somewhere in between?

Hi @khaleelkazi

Creating a community is basically the same process as creating a new account with a few other minor formatting details.
Does $0.40 seem like a fair price to launch an entire community on the Steemit interface?

I agree with you, that 3 STEEM is nothing. And knowing that value of creating account is so low ... it does create some particulart mindset.

It's a terrible idea. If one want to create product that others would value, then this product cannot be super cheap from the beginning. It's better provide services for 'free' than to charge 0.04$.

Yours, Piotr

I don't agree with you on this, I believe we need low barriers so STEEM can be the blockchain of "doers" and "triers". I'd be happy to launch a community for that price.

I agree with you on this, If it was higher it would be a lot less likely to see spam and scams communities come around. 3 steem is kinda a huge joke

Everyone wanting communities to be expensive are looking for the quick buck through a pump and dump. The introduction of communities is a necessary tool for attaining mass adoption in the way that Reddit has. These communities are like subredits, and subredits are FREE.

How do you expect Steem to succeed when it charges for everything that all the big sites give away for free?

Steem is not valuable yet.

Steem is a tiny community for now.

(Only a little over 11,000 people with 500 SP and above!)

Facebook didn't even know how it would become profitable in the beginning. Sometimes, you have to forego immediate earnings for future gains. The communities addition is not about making the STEEM price go up, its about making Steem a blockchain people actually want to use. Once Steem is busy with communities, content producers and a massively diverse crowd of interests, then STEEM will go up due to sheer demand for accounts and RCs.

3 seems fine to me. Most users probably will have no clue how to make a community anyways.

I think I can get a DBA - Do Business As for like $20 or less.

The idea that $0.40 is nothing only makes sense when sitting in a developed world with 3 phones, 4 laptops, 2 cars, running water, food in a refrigerator etc...

STEEM is not limited to a geographic location or a specific economy.

There are people who live on < $1 a day... To them, $0.40 is half a days work!

Posted using Partiko Android

Hi, @khaleelkazi!

You just got a 11.28% upvote from SteemPlus!
To get higher upvotes, earn more SteemPlus Points (SPP). On your Steemit wallet, check your SPP balance and click on "How to earn SPP?" to find out all the ways to earn.
If you're not using SteemPlus yet, please check our last posts in here to see the many ways in which SteemPlus can improve your Steem experience on Steemit and Busy.

Congratulations @khaleelkazi, your post successfully recieved 0.021384 TRDO from below listed TRENDO callers:

@d-zero earned : 0.014256 TRDO curation


To view or trade TRDO go to steem-engine.com
Join TRDO Discord Channel or Join TRDO Web Site

What a ridiculous concept! how the heck are they running a blockchain business?

 last year Reveal Comment