If I look at last **30 days**, it is 45K (43,782), but if they are posting once a month, I wouldn't consider them **active**.

...I'm just being pragmatic, not negative....If the stat is correct - It's still crap.

> If people came to social network and there were no rewards ever mentioned, the expectations gap would not be a problem.

And, pray tell, who created that expectation?

That would be Steemit Inc. who has, from day one, promoted Steemit itself and the steem blockchain as a place where you can come and get rewards for blogging/social networking. In fact, the underlying assumption that is and should be the case underlies a lot of your rah rah here because there's a lot of discussion of increasing the value of STEEM and not a lot about why people might want to be involved in active in the social network ecology.

Looking at the numbers is, and has been for quite some time, terribly revealing. People don't.

> You have not seen much progress in steemit as a social platform because the focus has been on the blockchain. Such a pity that the awesome people working directly on the block improving churn from over 100% to just over 50% is seen as not much progress.

This is correct. Rather than focus on the things that actually sets this blockchain apart from others and provides actual value to the commodity which STEEM represents, the focus has been on blockchain technology that doesn't facilitate getting more people involved or which is poorly designed to get more people involved (as we see in hardfork 20).

That's a real problem.

@themarkymark points out the necessarily obvious, in that we need to define what we think of as "active." I would further point out that we need to talk about and define what kind of activity is sufficient, because we don't know what percentage of those 45 K active accounts are bots that made one throwaway post or comment and then fell silent again.

The bots are the obvious problem for looking at churn and seeing a reduction, even if your numbers were accurate, as a positive. After all, if the number of bots getting new accounts outnumbered humans a thousand to one and each of those bots made a throwaway comment post and then did nothing else but hold money, the rate of churn would fall drastically. By any definition.

In an environment and ecology like this, churn is not a useful indicator – which is why in my previous reply I focused on "what is it supposed to mean."

Reducing it by half may just mean that we doubled the number of bots which sell votes and post spam.

So true.  The expectations should be set on distributed social media away from algorithmic control or censorship.  As an active influencer on IG and watching the algorithm cut my reach in half over the past month while requesting I promote my posts this is the main advantage here.