>lifetime membership on steemit

I think that sentence alone sounds very misinforming considering its decentralized accounts we are talking about.

But were you thinking of some sort of multisig account creation and then users asked to re-generate their passwords after their "trial" accounts have run out of x amount of time? 

I understand that there are issues with how weak the current sign up system is to abuse and was going to make a post about it tonight actually, but I'm not sure that charging users to have a steemit account is the right approach. Not yet, at least. 

Maybe give them trial account, depending on their reputation change during that time, they are granted a lifetime account for now. With a bigger adoption rate, payment for accounts would be much more plausible in my opinion.

One day people will pay for steemit account when we polished the system.

If I had been charged $15 (or anything) I would never have given it a second glance.  I suspect than no one else would either.

![eNA3oR](https://i.makeagif.com/media/10-07-2016/eNA3oR.gif)

Put me down as against it.
I get that we need the demand for steem, but to put this out of reach of someone just because they don't have the wherewithal to get it paid doesn't seem right.
If I had to pay anything I couldn't be here as I am unbanked.

Let's first worry about the product before talking about the market. The users in numbers asset is as, if not more of an important part to the product than the platform and the genious idea behind it to attach a cryptocurrency to a social network.   Are people running toward creating Steemit accounts right now? No, so what makes some Steemians believe an entering fee will turn that around other than a ''free looks like cheap'' argument? Even the video game industry knows better and now more and more lets people try the product before making money on players that really want to get more involve in the game. I thought the plan was long term accounts network development not short to medium term boosting Steem value. You can't offer an additional value to newcomers based on the fee you are asking of them, it's kind of a circular nonsense. Who would pay 15$ in exchange for the promise that more can be made without first knowing what they are getting themselves into?

This, and your post yesterday, remind me that [I posted (a month or so ago on the price of Steem falling)](https://steemit.com/money/@ibringawareness/steem-price-plunging-and-why-i-m-happy-about-it-because-of-steemit-s-secret-future-business-model-you-we-don-t-see-or-know-about) that Steemit would survive and thrive despite the recent price crash. One reason was that the product of a free blog site would eventually become something they'd easily be able charge for (even $1 mo, $10 yr, or $49-99 for a business page). However, I still think we're a lonnnnnng way off from that point. I did start a new post today that will incorporate that idea however, which I hope to have out tomorrow.
Best, Guy

With the new account rate and active user rate as it is (and even worse when taking into account fake accounts) I don't yet think this is the right move.

If they had this from the start though, things would have been a lot different.

http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/spongebob/images/2/28/170a_-_Free_Samples_081.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20150614174826

this is interesting.
steemit inside out.  
this would change steemits entering mechanisms recognizable. 
on the one side this maybe could have some positive effects for refunding future content. and i can imagine it could had an effect for content quality managment.  
(motivation throughout payment - spam gets expensive but maybe more serious, etc.)
But. 
on the other side this would mean changing parts of steemits ideological backrounds. 
the community could lose some content because of a more exclusive access.
and steemit wouldnt be finance barrier free anymore. 
Free registration is one of the most notable facts about steemit. 

This is would be a fascinating scenario. 
I guess this could have effects in both directions but its hard to estimate the actual outcome.

Well there is definitely a caveat here... If we were to charge $15... there is no guarantee that there will ever be 100k more accounts. I agree with your logic and the math makes sense but I know people love free things, that is why fb, twitter, and snapchat all work. If any of them were to charge their business would crater. I realize Steemit is different because you can earn money from it, so what is the right price point? I am not sure... my personal opinion would be to stay free though. We desperately need more people...

Bad idea. Users are valuable. 1m users is more valuable than 15m. If you charge 15$ you won't get those users.

There ar better ways to create value. I have propos d a bounty system that would make the platform much more valuable.

The mainstream audience is cheap. They have built up an entitlement of free internet, and it won't change. Look at Reddit Gold - there are 250+ million Redditors and less than 100k Gold subscribers. That's an almost inconsequential 0.04%.  I mean, there are already more Steemit users already than Reddit Gold subscribers. 

So I feel Steemit, Inc. should continue to offer free accounts, however, I totally agree users would need to power up to gain access to a lot of features. There's already restrictions for low-SP accounts, so it's on the right track. Just need better communication, reasons and motivating for powering up. Right now, a new user won't know to Power Up. There's not even a simple list for why one should Power Up anywhere on the site. I'm not saying turn it into nagware, but when a user registers, there must be a page which gets them up to speed with the benefits of Steem Power. 

And of course, tie into PayPal and Fiat credit cards, bank accounts etc. That'll make a huge difference.

This post has been linked to from another place on Steem.


  - [Advanced Steem Metrics Report for 6th October 2016](https://steemit.com/stats/@ontofractal/advanced-steem-metrics-report-for-6th-october-2016) by @ontofractal


Learn more about [**linkback bot v0.4**](https://steemit.com/steem/@ontofractal/steem-linkback-bot-v0-4-released). Upvote if you want the bot to continue posting linkbacks for your posts. Flag if otherwise.

Built by @ontofractal

Having been the victim of chargebacks I can see this as a problem. Once an account is created and steem accredited to it.. How would you deal with chargebacks ?

From the inside that sounds totally reasonable. From the outside, it's enough of a 'Ponzi' red flag that we won't hit 200k until 2030.

Today steemit has millions of users just because of free account. And what steemit is today, just because of their users. I think they should not charge for new account until steemit truely needs money to survive. If steemit now wants to prevent more users to join here, they can implement the idea.

Let the market decide how much a new account is worth.

I'd opt for a kind of package-deal: the account creator can choose from $5, $10 or $25 and gets double that value in Steem on his account.

This way a gift element remains to get new users, but they are also motivated to invest some real money. That will make them value their account more.

@fyrstikken, I like the market deciding.  You have great ideas!

one step at a time.
I'd first stop giving away free Steem on registering, most of which goes to bots anyway.
then use the giveaway money to buy steemdollars (which backs steem) or to lock it in a develoment fund or even better reduce the inflation which in the first year seems way too high (200%!).
paying to register seems a step too far right now, a user signup slump would be risky, and the current low payouts are not inviting enough for people to actually "pay to play".

You have to be joking.  Another obstacle to an active member? How to kill a community...in 1, 2, 3...

I don't think it will happen even though there is an actual cost to account creation.  I think the worry would be it would scare people away and it would give the anti Steemit "ponzi" people ammunition.  

That said I think it would be fair if not popular.

Another alternative would be to make it so that new accounts need to buy $15 worth of Steem and power it up.  

That would both create demand for Steem and increase the amount being powered up - hence reduce the the liquid Steem on the market.

http://i.imgur.com/4Zz8M1C.jpg

The average person doesn't now about steemit yet. We don't even have what is known as a critical mass awakening yet, which is 5% of the public or 15,945,000 people. I think you would be killing the momentum we are building. I am still trying to get my friends who are not computer savvy to try this out, and if they have to pay to join they are absolutely 100% not going to do so. I think this is a good idea but save it for a much much later time. This is still the "Beta" version. Once this is in it's final form and their is millions of users then we should start talking about this idea. Peace bro.