> although personally i would have liked to have seen a tiered system... ex 200x for those with less than 25sp, 10x for those above, etc.

Not a good idea! What would stop an abuser to have 100 accounts of 25 SP instead of 1 account of 2500 SP?

This  ^  ^  ^  ^  ^  ^

Although I would prefer:

1. 100 x for those under 25
2.  80 x for those 25-50
3. 60 x for those 50-100
4. 40 x for those 100-250
5. 20 x for those 250-500
6. 10 x for those 500-2500
7.  5 x for those 2500-10000
8.  4 x for this 10000-20000
9.  3 x for those 20000-30000
10.  2 x for those 30000-100000

Of course, I think that can be tinkered with, but you definitely need a sliding scale NOT JUST multiplying everyone by 10.  THAT WILL NOT DO WHAT YOU INTENDED WITH THE CURRENT ANNOUNCEMENT/PATCH.  The goal is to totally HOOK the newbie, not frustrate him/her and drive them off the platform.

You forgot to mention trybe.one which is closer to the steemit model than medium and the other pre-blockchain platforms

I see what you are thinking, but I do not agree. New accounts now have a very limited amount of characters they can put in their _introduceyourself_ post, probably not enough to make something impactful.

I agree with your sentiment here, but if Steem wants mass adoption, we still need to drive the base necessary SP for an acceptable user experience much lower. 

Let's round up and say we have 300 million Steem in existence right now. That's 60 million accounts each with 5 Steem. So we're capped at 60 million users... already not a huge number compared to big networks. And that's if we go full Communist, and everyone gives up any stake they have above 5 SP. More accurately we'll probably follow a 80/20 distribution, meaning we have just 60 million Steem around for "average" accounts outside whales, businesses, etc.  So we can expect maybe 12 million users who may not even have the option to power up because there's no more Steem to be had.

We need accounts with 1 SP or less to still be viable for truly mass adoption. I'm starting to think this may not be doable, and we may emerge into a model more of 0 SP users being subsidized by RCs shared or delegated by the platforms and apps they are interacting on.

They are not being offered an incentive to power up, they are being forced out. Someone joins the blockchain and comments "hi, i am new here." and thats it, he can't do anything more. He doesn't even know what mana is or what powering up means. And he has to wait 5 days before he can ask another question.

Who has patience for that. I would have moved on if that was the experience I had when I first joined and I am a very patient man.

> @ajayy, it's not unacceptably low when someone can easily begin to work their way up now. It's acceptably low if they decide to stay at the bottom. The choice is theirs.
@nonameslefttouse

@ned  @steemitblog  @andrarchy
*  Does Steemit aspire  to mass adoption? What does that mean?
*  What kind of  newbie should I  help or encourage to onboard onto Steemit?

Let them leave, competition is good for this space. Though I have to be honest, if these places (WeKu, Trybe, Smoke) think it's going to be a piece of cake developing a working cryptocurrency social media site, they're in for a shock. Can they do it with Steemit having 2 years head start on them? Maybe, with how dysfunctional the development here seems. It remains to be seen, but at the present, Steemit is the best out of these systems by far.

>I actually couldn't more strongly disagree with everything in your comment.

Well that's a pretty vague statement.

>Not when it comes to the free flow of ideas. Free speech is far more valuable when its abundance is increased.

Not sure I can agree, there's no limit to how much people post on Facebook, and it's filled with insipid spam that you have to wade through to find something substantial. 

Metaphysically, I couldn't be more aligned with the concept of infinite abundance and transitioning into that type of era, but at the present my current conclusion is that most of humanity is nowhere near ready for that paradigm.  They unfortunately respond better to a mix of punishment-based and reward-based systems.

>Insofar as new users are unable to comment and post, the market for Steem will be suppressed. I recommend you give that more thought.

New users will be able to comment and post freely once a working RC-delegation service is deployed. *(Why this was not completed and launched with the release of RCs quite frankly mystifies me. We need this immediately.)* Personally, I'd be more than happy to delegate in excess of 90% of my RCs to newer users because I'll likely never dip below 10% usage. Whale services like @utopian-io should be able to support thousands of deserving users and be able to onboard them as well by claiming discounted accounts.

>Consider the caliber of communicants you will enjoy who are actually willing to pay to play.

People are usually not very dedicated to something if they don't have any "skin in the game." I've experienced this myself by holding free classes in poetry. They were not taken very seriously at all and changed my way of thinking on the energetics of current-exchange.

People pay for magazine subscriptions. People pay for software services. People pay for Spotify. People pay for videogames. People pay for Starbucks coffee. People pay for booze. People pay for clothes. Until we fully transition to the age of abundance, it's not that radical to ask them to pay to support the development of a next-paradigm social networking platform.

>SOC (SMTs, Oracles, and Communities) will work together to enable communities to exclude bots, paid delegations, or any given type of interaction, as well as the opposite. After some consideration, I expect communities that reflect the actual value of social interaction to perform very well, and those focused on mere mammon to be quite small (if emunerative, potentially). This is because society is far more valuable than it's mere economic aspects can account.

Consciousness is the dynamo that generates any and all value in economic systems. We agree here, other than the fact that I am skeptical that the profit-based communities will fail. I think they will continue to outperform many of the esoteric communities because people that have negative views on money (which is just a form of energy) typically don't manage it well. I know this from personal experience with this type of person, because to a large degree I *am/have been* this type of person.

>I admit I'm kinda odd, not caring about my personal finances at all, but I've determined that I'll occupy a box in dirt someday, and won't get to enjoy spending money I've accumulated during life.

All depends upon the aspiration. Some people want millions so they can build farms, develop technologies, employ people, and help shift the paradigm in a concrete way. Not everyone wants money for selfish reasons. Some people want to stay poor for selfish reasons.

>So, I do work I like that pays necessary bills, and spend the rest of my days with good people. If I can take anything into the grave with me, my good memories of good friends will be in there. That's more valuable anyway.

I respect that a lot. In fact, I'm about be getting a job overseas that pays a very low salary for a lot of work. Because I've lived in India before and realized their wealth is the love they have for each other, and their community. I felt quite at home in that type of culture.

Earning money, having aspirations to improve the world, and being content with little are not mutually exclusive. Everything is just different forms of energy that we have the opportunity to channel/interact with and hopefully stay grateful for our existence through all, good/bad.

Thanks for your reply @valued-customer.

As we move ahead in 'oneness..."Reversing Forward. Future Is History"