image: pixabay

I found a Coindesk article written by @wmougayar that was just published today that gives great guidelines for what to look for in an ICO. Also, it mentions STEEM in a favorable way. Here's the quote about Steem:

For example, steem has done a good job crossing boundaries between their cryptocurrency-governed site Steemit, and the real world, and demonstrated it at their recent Steemfest in Amsterdam.

Here are four examples I describe in a recent article, "Steemit’s First ‘Fest’ Reveals the Power of Blockchain Community" that showcase this cross-pollination of transactions between the crypto-world and the non-crypto spaces. -Coindesk

Here's the entire article titled, 4 Criteria For Evaluating Blockchain ICO's It's a really good assessment of what makes an ICO successful.

While reading through the list of essential components of a successful ICO, I couldn't help but think about Steem in two respects:

Do they have external advisors? and Do they have operational transparency?

I noticed that the author of this article is an advisor to the Ethereum Foundation. Does Steemit/Steem have external advisors?

If not, it would be a smart move to have advisors now. Steemit is in an unusual position of already having an active community, but it still lacks a real identity. There's a social network for all kinds of communities, there's even one for scientists. In trying to attract everyone, it doesn't attract a cohesive group. I think Cryptoctopus is correct in his assessment that the "Welcome To The Blockchain" intro page doesn't really serve anyone except those few who already know what the word, 'blockchain' means. I think a radical re-assessment of the marketing strategy is in order. But before that's done, Steemit has to decide what it is.

I see Steemit as an online networking game in which people use bots, betting, curation strategies, writing and flagging censorship to exercise their power over others and make money.

Of course, new friendships and business alliances are forged as well, but I see the game aspect as being dominant. In the absence of forming groups, tribes, instant messaging and an overreliance on automation, Steemit, has more in common with a game than a social networking site. If it is a game, then it should become fully gamified and marketed that way, and it should be clear about its true nature. It's clearly not attracting writers, so one has to ask the question, who is it attracting?

And about operational transparency, do you think Steemit has that? If you'd asked me a month ago, when the founders were all but absent from blogging, I'd have said no. I still think the transparency aspect could be improved. Communities require constant communication, done in a transparent way. Transparent communication means that even when the founders make mistakes, they come forward and admit it. Many businesses have been saved by founders coming forward and transparently discussing problems, mistakes and faux pas.

If you read the article, what aspects of a successful ICO are worth mentioning? What areas could Steemit learn from and incorporate into their structure?

This was an insightful part of the Coindesk article:

Here’s another important question that deserves its own dive:

How does value flow from the outside of the ecosystem to the inside, and vice versa (not counting speculatory trading on public exchanges)?

There are two types of segments for generating value:

Inside your own market
Outside of your market and into the cryptocurrency markets in general or the real world.