I had one of those perspective moments when someone mentioned the movie *Run All Night* tonight.

![image](http://dl9fvu4r30qs1.cloudfront.net/35/aa/8dc6a00448988bbb0e963e6e82b8/run-all-night-liam-neeson.jpg)
[*](http://www.indiewire.com/2015/03/box-office-cinderella-opens-with-massive-70-million-liam-neeson-can-barely-run-all-night-266264/)

It was in response to a meme. Someone brought up the movie and I didn't recognize it so I looked it up, and the first thing I noticed was that it had a box office gross of [**$71.7 million**](https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=run+all+night+box+office).

For some reason the first thing that popped into my head was the market cap of STEEM, [**$53,966,179**](https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/steem/), and it made me think about how weird economies are.

On the one hand we have a movie -- a *single movie*, not the industry as a whole -- that is at least somewhat marginalized (because I'd never heard of it) which had a box office gross that is tens of millions of dollars greater than the entire market cap of STEEM.

On the other hand, we have a free-market asset class that is a little over a year old, bootstrapped from the ground up with organic growth, is useful for thousands of people to earn an income and to speculate, and it is at nearly $54 mill.

The film itself must support a whole network of people including actors, directors, marketing, production, transportation, and distribution, so the cheddar at the top is not exactly all take-home cash under someone's bed. And with STEEM we have very little overhead, which is all voluntary (films have unions), and no real employees to speak of (there are folks working on *steemit*, but the currency itself, as I understand it, is decentralized), and the people involved all benefit in its rise and suffer in its fall.

There isn't really an end-point for this post. I'm just posting an observation for my own amusement. 

Does this kind of stuff ever cross your mind?

@shayne