" he threatened all miners with the thought that maybe their little game would be up by making it so bitshares required stakeholders to VOTE for the people who could sign blocks and earn tokens in the network. Wait...you mean no more free money without proving I provide value to the largest stakeholders?!"
I didn't know that so thank you for clearing it up.
I would suspect that creating a new system that addresses problems that no one is bothering to look at could definitely stir the pot. It takes a very strong person to stand up to that kind of social pressure. Social pressure is designed to keep the status quo in place, and people who have power and money generally dislike those who challenge their system for obvious reasons. I think the numbers speak for themselves as far as adoption. In time, it will reach 100,000 and there remains a lot of issues to resolve. But Dan does show one thing that very few are willing to undertake: careful examination of a problem and then a transparent discussion of the solutions. Not everyone is going to be happy with the chosen solutions, but how often do we see the co-founder of a company address the people? I mean, this is unheard of, and I believe people are losing sight of the many positive aspects that exist. The thing I would like to know is this however, since I've hears various ideas: what do the founders intend to do with Steemit after say 3 years? There seems to be this feeling, on the part of skeptics, and others that Steemit is just an experiment and one that perhaps the founders will be wanting to get out of.....what could possibly be the logic in that? Building something just to let it dissolve? That seems counter-intuitive. What do you think about this?