I like that one. I've been feeling for a long time that market cap is a bad way to measure the success of a cryptocurrency in the same sense that population is a bad way to measure the success of a country. It is a measure, and it's an informative measure, but it ends up leading us to make apples/oranges comparisons between different things.
Steem vs. Bitcoin seems like a good example. They both have a cryptocurrency attached to them, but aside from that they're very different projects with very different goals. They have similar rates of inflation, but Steem uses its newly-minted tokens in a very different way from how Bitcoin uses its newly-minted tokens. I'm not sure why we should expect market cap to give us much information about which one is more useful.
It is interesting because market cap is a direct measure in another currency like USD, but the reason many coins exist to facilitate trade among people in a way that decouples us from that thinking. I'm probably not making sense because this is not my area of expertise by far, but its kind of like micro-GDP's , but we want to stop allowing outside forces dictate our ability to trade within certain markets. Steemit is trade in ideas/teaching/art, and we are simultaneously trying to stop putting a dollar value on it while also trying to figure out what our teaching value is in relation to rent or groceries. I love the crypto space because we are shaking our current systems to their core to see what aspects need to be removed as a give. @biophil, your students will be very lucky to have such an interesting and thoughtful teacher!
Strongly disagree. It includes ideas, teaching and art. Limiting steem to only these concepts hurts the blockchain as a whole.
good one