Oh, and I forgot to mention, I agree that it's structural. It may not be obvious, but according to Yahoo finance, STEEM has been outperforming HIVE consistently for a year or more.
The main point of the article is that I think the price inversion is structural. Our instinct is to think that, since HIVE has more active users, it must be more valuable. The debt extracts the value; so STEEM might be more valuable than HIVE.
The one thing I learned from this mess is that the debt we are facing wasn't created by the borrowers. The debt wasn't created by HIVE authors or curators. It was created by lenders who wanted to earn a large passive income.
The debt didn't provide direct benefit to the blockchain as a whole. It was created to benefit lenders.
BTW: The fractional reserve lending allowed by the Federal Reserve creates a situation where banks can earn about 20% interest on paper loans ...of course the system really just creates boom and bust financial cycles and ladens the host country with debt.
The main point of the article is that I think the price inversion is structural. Our instinct is to think that, since HIVE has more active users, it must be more valuable. The debt extracts the value; so STEEM might be more valuable than HIVE.
The one thing I learned from this mess is that the debt we are facing wasn't created by the borrowers. The debt wasn't created by HIVE authors or curators. It was created by lenders who wanted to earn a large passive income.
The debt didn't provide direct benefit to the blockchain as a whole. It was created to benefit lenders.
BTW: The fractional reserve lending allowed by the Federal Reserve creates a situation where banks can earn about 20% interest on paper loans ...of course the system really just creates boom and bust financial cycles and ladens the host country with debt.