Not so long ago, I read a post that seemed designed to use information from Rycharde he provides us weekly on Blurt economic numbers to present what was an inaccurate conclusion.
I think it a fair assumption that most of the community would be likely to fall for misrepresentations. Either from a position of not liking math, to a position of feeling small in the scheme of things (minnows and dolphins) and feeling no need to look deeply into the math. Which lends itself to a willingness many have to allowing another who claims to be an expert tell them what conclusions they should reach (doing the thinking for them).
The Math
Here is the general math breakdown as given by Rycharde recently.
Blurt Economic Indicators
BLURT Supply = 467.9 million
Vested BLURT (BP) = 55.5% (+0.0) 259 million
BP Voting Capacity = 38.7% (+2.5)
https://blurt.blog/blurt/@rycharde/blurt-economic-indicators-19-june-2022
In the post that used this information in my eyes disingenuously it was asserted that there was this math in play.
259 - (21 me + ctime) = 238
238 - (45 socialgraph + initblurt) = 193
193- 21 (me+ctime) = 172
I can see how others would take this on its face and accept this as solid numbers. Yet there are several glaring mistakes I see that I think presents a great opportunity for the community to get a better feel outside of the drama for what the math really looks like.
So I'll just mention in passing that the final number in the above misrepresentation of 259-21 that first the 21 million was subtracted twice in the above math demonstration, and appeared to me to further obfuscate the math by leaving out the following not talked a lot about truth.
Where this becomes an even more misleading picture and needs more light shown on it is this ignores the amount of what I'll call dead Blurt we have here in Blurt. The truth is there is nowhere close to that amount of Blurt that can be accessed. I've never mentioned it in the posts by Rycharde because his presentations haven't been made to elicit an understanding that would benefit him. They are made for a general understanding to aid the community who don't wish to do a bunch of math (most I would guess).
So here is what the math looks closer to in reality.
Let's now take a peek at the rich list on the most awesome tool here on Blurt, Ecosynthesizer.
https://ecosynthesizer.com/blurt/richlist
Using only a few of the top 6 accounts to get a better understanding we can see this.
The top Blurt holder would be @upbitsteem. An inactive account that has no transaction I can find since Blurt was created. They currently hold 59,486,549.940 Blurt that is in effect dead Blurt. So for a better picture it must be subtracted from what we are viewing as available liquid Blurt that is likely to never be powered up and put into play.
Second on the rich list we see another account that appears to be a dead account. The @rap7tq6vu58ujg account holds 31,794,527.235 Blurt that is dead.
As we can see, from just the two top Blurt holders here we have already reached an amount of 91,281,077.175 Dead Blurt. Just those two top accounts have in effect taken a little over 20% of total Blurt from available use and circulation.
Taken from the 467.9 million total Blurt supply leaves us with 376.6 million real supply.
I wont bore you with going further in these subtractions other than to point out that if you look at the top 20 Blurt holders you will see MANY are held in dead accounts and will continue reducing the actual total supply of Blurt in any of our equations.
The secondary aspect that must be acknowledged is some of these same dead accounts also have stake powered up that likely will never be used. Just sitting there growing through vest increase to offset inflation.
For example I would call attention to 4th place on the rich list, Binance-hot. They currently have 7,353,456.485 powered up into stake.
I also note that huobi who is 5th and 6th on the list holds 1,860,000 powered up into stake.
I have to assume on seeing this that the snapshot for Blurt was made during the time the exchanges helped themselves to users coins to help Justin Sun take over Steem.
Regardless, just those two dead accounts control 9.2 million of the current stake in play.
So using just some of these examples I've given it's clear to see there is a good amount of Blurt staked up that will never be used for any purpose other than to continue receiving more Blurt to stop vest erosion.
Even clearer to see the impact is greater on the amount of liquid Blurt that could ever be potentially bought and staked up as so much of it is locked into these dead accounts.
Why, even Blocktrades who is 11th on the list holds 2.1 million likely dead forever Blurt.
Key Takeaway On The Math
Just looking at the raw numbers gives us an inaccurate picture of the economics of the Blurt token.
There is a much higher scarcity to the Blurt token than those raw numbers suggest due to all of the dead Blurt, both in what's powered up and even more so in what liquid is ever potentially available for purchase. Just using a preliminary look as we just did suggests to me that 25% or more of supposed liquid Blurt is dead, and that possibly as much as 10% of powered up Blurt is dead.
Based on this understanding of the real numbers reveal we would be closer to an explosion in price growth once demand for Blurt increases.
I remember reading shortly after coming here discussion from the founders who have been like a FOUNDATION
Foundation
the act of founding
an underlying base or support
a body or ground upon which something is built up or overlaid
I would say that it was an apt description for what they have done (founded), the support they have given as an underlying base that Blurt has been built upon.
on this being in their eyes one of the crucial mistakes they made when they forked Blurt into existence. It is what it is, and from the presentation I just made it seems to me to also have a hidden blessing for those who understand the implications of this dead Blurt.
A quick sharing on developer reality
I was asked to make a post out of a comment I made recently. I wasn't going to as I have felt drained from much of this back and forth emotionally charged misrepresentations and actions taking place. However, since I'm writing this post to help with greater understanding on the math I'll include it here.
@clixmoney was the member asking this, and he wrote his own post on this after I declined that you can read here.
I'm condensing my comment to save on fees.
https://blurt.blog/blockchain/@clixmoney/salaries-of-blockchain-developers
My comment
Since this all began I've pointed out those who wish control needed a plan for our interfaces to the chain that we could be sure worked and were secure. Sadly for them (and more so the community), their only reply was the Foundation they sought to replace would continue on. That they could seek the money from proposals that would be mostly controlled by the person seeking their ouster who was daily growingly making accusations of criminal fraud. We also have some general comments from one of the co founders and one of the devs that they would refuse to work here under those conditions and go elsewhere where they could be free of such a structure and likely get paid more. I don't think many here are understanding how underpaid they are for the work being done here.
I'll use the current valuation for my example for Tekraze.
Last month he was paid 150000 Blurt. At the current .007 valuation that would be worth 1050.00. Suppose he works 15 hours per week on Blurt for simplicity. That would be 60 hours in a month. That would come out to an hourly wage of 17.50 an hour. Annually that would come to 12600.00 in a year.
According to this site here
https://www.dappuniversity.com/articles/blockchain-developer-salary
According to job recruitment firm Hired.com, the average blockchain developer salary is staggering — it ranges from $150,000 to $175,000 per year!
While this high figure represents the mean salary, the median annual pay is as high as $127,000 based upon data provided by leading management consulting firm, Janco Associates.
Online recruiting firm Ziprecruiter reports an average salary of over $157,000 per year. Here is a breakdown of wage distribution.
We can see that there is a drastic difference in value between what an average programmer makes and what a programmer is paid here at Blurt. Even when the price was .02 each there would have been a drastic difference. This also doesn't account for the fact that we have a chain written in a code most blockchain developers don't know, which makes the skill more rare and thus able to demand a higher compensation than average.
[source}(https://blurt.blog/blurt/@practicalthought/rdvvae)
I think it obvious that those who are here developing often go unrecognized for the sacrifices they make, that once one accounts for the low amount of compensation they receive in relation for what they are giving one could almost view their actions as one of a charitable nature.
Regardless of any disagreements one may have over how situations are viewed with any of the developers here, losing sight of the fact they are dedicating themselves to the stability and improvement of Blurt for all of us should not ever be on the plate. They continue on here, DESPITE those of us who they disagree with, even for those here who attack them (often fallaciously).
Their belief in Blurt, their belief that one day their hard work for essentially peanuts will one day possibly pay off for ALL OF US deserves a recognition and thanks. Without them none of this is possible.
Higher Fees
There have been some valid points being made on the implementation for higher fees.
I've watched them in relation to my own usage here, and yesterday I saw a sharp increase. I acknowledge I write a lot more than the average user, but yesterday without publishing a post and only commenting my fees were a little over 20 Blurt, which appears to be a hike of 2.5 to 3 times what I was paying.
I can understand the concerns some of our leaders in curation and onboarding have on how this will impact the community members who have little to spare, some who are dependent even on the little bit they earn here for survival.
As with many discussions there are valid points both for and against structures.
I would direct you to one position on a positive from the higher fees here, from one of the leaders here at Blurt that spends much time curating new and smaller accounts.
In general I personally lean towards the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.
Having said that I do think that there must be a way to aid those where the impact of this move could see their participation here come to an abrupt halt.
As we can see in comment on the above post by kamranrkploy, there is already a move by a program he and several other witnesses have been using for some time to aid members to help offset this obstacle.
Their stellar community program is called @powerclub.
From my view I see where higher fees have many benefits, from stopping spam to increasing the scarcity which is already higher than the base appearance suggests.
I thank those speaking out on behalf of those who could be devastated by this move, and for the team at powerclub for seeking to offset this for accounts they have taken the time to vet and make sure aren't just spam farmers.
I think the higher fee structure can be made to work if enough of us work together in tandem with powerclub to make this work for the smaller accounts.
There are several ways this can be done.
For myself I think the easiest way is naming the powerclub account as beneficiary for a percentage from the posts we make. I don't post often generally as I believe comment section is where the life of Blurt is at, but for my part I'll begin doing this on some of my posts to aid in their valiant effort.
If several more also find ways to aid them in this hand up to valuable members of the community we can ensure the best of both worlds on each side of this structure.
Thanks for reading and hope you have a great weekend.
It’s crazy when you see these dead accounts wifh all that blurt or tokens and no one doing a thing wifh them.
The guy could just stroll in and effectively take control of the whole network and he perhaps doesn’t even know blurt exists.
Yeah I about fell out of my chair when I saw how much dormant (dead) Blurt exists. Especially at the exchanges, some of which is powered up demonstrating some of the exchanges that helped themselves to user funds to help the takeover of Steem when Blurt founders took the snapshot.
My impression on the mood that led to Blurt was a growing dissatisfaction with the design of the vote theft mechanism (flags) and the takeover was the final straw for Jacob and Mega.
I read when I first got here (Jacob was involved here a lot then) concessions they made some mistakes in setting Blurt up in the haste they did. One of which was the many accounts dropped Blurt that were inactive, as well as exchanges who to this day refuse to list Blurt and hold all of that Blurt that belongs to their customers who owned that as Steem at the time of the drop. None of that Blurt on exchanges belongs to the exchanges.
The largest theft exchange being upbit. They are currently holding 59,486,549.940 Blurt that belongs to folks who held that much Steem with them when the fork occurred. If they ever decided to get into the business of running a chain like Justin Sun did that would make them a formidable foe.
Even second on that list rap7tq6vu58ujg holds 31,794,527.235. We don't even know who that is, and is worrisome if it is someone like the Berniesanders account. He has so many accounts and several that are just strings of numbers like that.
Just the exchanges listed in the top 8 have a combined 10.1 Million Blurt POWERED UP already.
Given the time frame that Blurt was made, the entire logic behind the socialgraph account was to ensure it would be difficult for what played out on Steem with the back door deal Justin Sun made with exchanges to be possible here. And despite the misunderstandings over the Dao as opposed to founders accounts that exist, the fact is that the regent account has virtually no power in anything left already and will have zero in a few days. Nothing will change in regards to rankings or anything else, and will be exactly what they initially said would happen two years ago despite the misconceptions being pushed around here.
It’s just amazing they can sit there and not bother about 59 million blurt which at one point was £150,000. They could at least withdraw it and give to a charity or a few bloggers they like
I have to think part of it might be their concerns over stealing if they did. I would think the true owners of that Blurt held on the exchanges would have a more solid case that would shift from civil to criminal if they ever move to sell it or use it for goodwill such as a charity. As long as it sits there unused they are only in violation of civil law and the odds of anyone trying to navigate that is slim. Get a law enforcement/court system involved and they will unleash resources and time citizens do not have with far graver consequences for the criminal.
Congratulations, your post has been curated by @techclub
Manually curated by
@samhenrytenplus
Only fools analyze the wrong math. From the beginning, what Rycharde had shown was not true. The lies are constantly being shown.
thanks.
Right, that maths was wrong.
One thing to do, as you did, is to scan down the richlist and add up all the dormant accounts - mostly exchanges, but not all. Most of those hold liquid BLURT but there are also some large BP holders.
The other is to note the Voting Capacity ;-) This was added fairly recently precisely because the BP alone gives an inflated picture of true activity.
The calculation for the above numbers, 38.7% of 259M, gives 100M BP. Although an estimate, this gives a fair approximation to the amount of active BP - no surprise to see the top witnesses have about this much in votes. ;-)
Thus, any battle for control of witnesses takes place with that 100M plus whatever is on active exchanges.
Hahaha. Real lies. Misguided mathematician.
I never viewed it as nefarious as he would gain nothing from such a lie.
I view it more like this.
source
Everyone in that picture holds a valid extension of the elephant in their hands. And in turn they each believe what appear to be contradictory observations that are true in reality.
It would take a lot of time and words to paint an accurate description of the elephant if one were to go into deep detail on every part of the elephant.
I view the presentation he makes weekly to be one where he is just saying
so as not to confuse folks with a large 5000 word dissection on all of the parts. I imagine most wouldn't read such a work if he did put in the effort as many seem to shy away from math and appreciate someone who simplifies it as he is doing for them. My examination wasn't meant to be a critique as much as an examination on two of the limbs if you would.
I note in his response to myself he actually does mention he addresses a little more into my examination than I understood with the voting capacity. Which is further proof of how easy it is to get lost in these descriptions as I was ignorant he was accounting for some of the (dead) dormant stake that exists here in his reports. It's easy for these type of disconnects to happen once we label something. In my mind I viewed/labeled this as dead stake and it was pointed to me that a better description is dormant, and in my mind the same label dead stake and his use on his reports voting capacity.
Just curious, but did attacking him do anything for you, make you feel satisfied? Help scratch that itch of anger inside of you? Do you feel it contributed anything of value?
erm, complementary - voting capacity is the un-dead, un-dormant, wakeful stake ;-)
or an approximation thereof!
I just posted the latest "weekly", and mentioned the VC again. Also that it was designed to be a tracker rather than an accurate estimate. Real activity is reflected in the recent claims, but that is a 15-day trailing indicator, whereas VC is a current estimator. Thus if VC rises one week, then claims should rise next week - given other things equal.
Yes, the lightbulb went off last night once you explained it :)
It's a good demonstration on how the labels we decide on can limit how we are viewing something that is using a different label. I normally don't worry over this stuff as well which helped contribute to my ignorance.
I only concerned myself with it here based initially on the presentation of numbers that were giving a misleading view of what a stake battle could look like. The more I looked I saw such positive news from the numbers on dormant (dead) stake putting us much closer to scarcity than one would originally think. I about fell out of my chair seeing how much liquid Blurt upbit alone holds for example. Under a free for all stake system which is the current topic they alone would be pretty hard to stop if they decided they wanted to branch out into the blockchain control business. Unlikely but wow.
Right, and Steemit only had in place an agreement for exchanges not to interfere with governance - there was nothing in the code to legitimately block (as agreed) such accounts from doing so - hence binance were able to powerup and help JSun ;-) code trumps words!
Indeed, BLURT is scarce!
Misguided words.
Prove it Sherlock!
Hahaha, this is a great challenge.
Not Dead Blurt, but rather Dormant Blurt. Dead accounts can be considered dead only when there is concrete confirmation that the owners of those accounts have lost their keys. Otherwise, you are making a dangerous assumption; one that the leadership would be wise not to indulge.
Yes, that would be a more accurate term, thank you. While I find it unlikely most of the dormant accounts will ever become active, that possibility is there. I was not as critical in the naming as my focus was on exposing the large amount of Blurt that is not in play. Due to this fact it wouldn't take near as much enthusiasm for the token to explode in value as so much of it sits there for a long time now unused.
I honestly hope that you are correct, although I am not a fan of the token value exploding. As an investor, obviously yes! But as for increasing the userbase, absolutely not!
I've been ready for years now for an explosion of this kind, lol.
I'm not sure on how much it would hinder as I've often thought due to the low valuation and velocity that many have viewed Blurt as less than it is.
I've been in sales a lot of my life and there is a saying that always cracked me up.
I think there are too many attempts to equate real life experiences and knowledge with what happens on Blurt. This is why I am always laughing at how serious people are about what they believe is going on here. And I witnessed the same thing on Steemit, only on Steemit I took the company seriously because they are indeed a bona fide company. So my commentaries were a bit different in that I would try to help people understand how to deal with an authentic, legal company running a cryptomedia social platform. I see Blurt as a private project until proven otherwise. This is why my commentaries and my humour is so different here.
I truly imagine this place like an MMORPG (Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game) in which we earn tokens for the roles we choose to play. So I have nothing against calling the leadership's squad The Blurt Foundation because for me it's like when you form an alliance in these games to win more tokens, take power and role play! 😊
I see it as more than that myself. Since I first stumbled onto Steemit years ago, I quickly fell in love with the economic model that would allow someone of my meager means to be able to help someone else financially, and further get rewarded for such an action. That here at Blurt they took away the flag downvote that could erase such an intent.
While I have had my doubts over the last several years that this endeavor will ultimately ever change my status economically, while I wait and see it gives me satisfaction to see firsthand that my actions can still be of benefit to another. Especially those who are under harsher economic boots than myself and despite the low valuation it still has an immediate impact in their corner of the world.
I'm a pretty serious person, possibly the most serious many will cross paths with. I despise the masks so many wear, and believe that in my years on these forms of platforms have met others who are of similar mind.
This I appreciate very much! And I learned this while on Steemit. In fact, it was the Steemit Team who in responding to one of my comments, shared that insight with me. I was suggesting that their efforts to seek out developers would be fruitless because the value of STEEM was around $0.12 at the time. They responded by saying that they were recruiting developers from places like India, Africa and South America, where that $0.12 goes a long way. So I honor your objective, and in that context, a slightly higher valued token would be terrific!
This is why I have always enjoyed following you from day one... and your upvotes are nice too! 🤣 😉 🙏
I remember when I first got to Steem. I was (and still am largely) skeptical of crypto. But Bitcoin had recently hit 20k and was beginning its descent and I was curious enough how something as worthless as Bitcoin could have folks paying so much.
It didn't take me long as I poked around Steem before I started seeing it.
There was a young man from Africa whose post put it all into perspective. He was showing pictures of his new shoes, and eatign at a restaurant with his friends. He was thanking Steem, as before his life was one where one didn't own new shoes or eat in a restaurant. His story humbled me as I realized this rare opportunity I had stumbled on to help others get their shoes and meals.
I was blessed to be part of one group who helped many less fortunate, ones targeted by a corrupt law system and who struggled to buy food and basic necessities.
Underneath all of the games and masks that take place in these systems there is an underlying realness that forms real bonds and the lightening of loads on some shoulders just not possible for many elsewhere. Struggles and heartache that for many seems no one cares, no one is coming to help, and yet here of all places we see that some do.
I can ramble on this a lot as you can tell. Even if and when this shit all folds, very possibly before it would make any personal financial difference for myself, there is much to be said of being able to look at our brothers and sisters toiling away just to tread water and make that shit lighter, even if just for a day or a few years. Regardless of how this unfolds, I've been blessed and have seen many others blessed. Heroes such as Mr. Cornell, Canadian-Cocanut and so many others of lesser means that together are able to make miraculous things manifest.
Thank you. :)
I appreciate often how your mind works.
haha, now even scammers are using that to excuse their scam :
How fast they are. Trying to find an excuse by being a dormant account. lol
I looked that account up this morning on Hive and feel comfortable that a hack did take place.
I think it more probable that small accounts are at risk than the larger ones like exchanges though. I've always been wary of using third party apps as to me that is the strongest point of failure in securing ones keys.
We even saw here some time back one of the third party apps on Blurt had kept everyones keys and helping themselves to the accounts.
Doesn't say they got their account back! ;-)
yeah, I should take my words back. Can't be deleted in the blockchain. lol
im confused now! was agreeing with you - no human user is going to write such a cold calm piece without saying that they'd got the account back and apologise for any transgressions during the hack. It's like a really bad hack-actor.
I don't know as well, @mineopoly said in this comment that he knows the owner of the account : https://blurt.blog/blockchain/@mineopoly/re41bz
And I guess @saboin also mentioned that the account is legit.
I'm confused as well.
It's all a Ballo in Maschera.
OK, the attack is possible in case when the BP from exchanges and dead accounts is used.
This is what I would accept:
return of 45 million BLURT (socialgraph, initblurt) to the DAO
the funds that have been already transferred to "foundation" members remain their property
newly powered up BLURT will become eligible to vote for witnesses only after 30 days (if I am not wrong this mechanism is used on Hive)
"Quiet Regent" - if it turns out that someone is trying to gain control of the blockchain using BP that was not purchased on exchanges, the Regent can be activated by witness consensus. (we have 30 days to determine if we are under attack)
stop all contact with hivewatchers idiots
no discord bans for witnesses
We invite you to use the tag #blurthispano. You can find us on Discord.
Manually curated by Geeklania.
We invite you to vote for @blurthispano as Witness.
Posted from https://blurtlatam.com
Scam comment removed
Notice that the offending and offensive phishing link is now hideen with "Phishing Link Detected and Hidden" - this was just recently coded to avoid the gullible clickers.
ANY offer, IF real, can be found with a simple search - DO NOT click random shit just coz of promises of free stuff! That's what my cat would do.
Scammer here, please alerts to all blurt friends and family.
scam.
Gracias por compartir tu publicación en #Blurt. Tu esfuerzo significa mucho para nosotros; por eso has recibido un voto positivo.
Te invito a votar por @blurtlatam como Testigo / Witness