Personally I'd take all curation rewards for that purpose instead of dipping into author reward pool. Two birds with one stone - curation rewards are actually damaging, they distort the natural flow of "likes", especially with introduction of bots.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Curation rewards should actually be higher, as curators are usually also stakeholders. If people want a high STEEM price, they should also want stakeholders to keep their STEEM in powered up form; which requires an incentive.
Authors are also important, but keep in mind that authors are usually the ones with the least risk in this system.
Curation rewards are unnecessary, since people will upvote good content without being rewarded. As a bidbot owner, you know that curation rewards create rent seeking behaviour - it's what you do. You enable delegations to seek rent. The higher curation rewards are, the less curation has any damn thing to do with content quality, and the more it becomes rent seeking.
Be honest, please.
SP seems not to be driving price up at all, while negative retention and trash trending - completely caused by rent seeking curation - are killing the goose that lays the golden egg of Steem value.
Want the price to go up? Quit seeking rent and start rewarding good content.
I fully agree
tax vote buying and selling:)
The most important reward for curators is their influence. Bidbot users need curation rewards, but Reddit shows that people will be generous with upvotes without receiving any rewards.
Authors invest a lot of time and effort in the platform, which they will never get back.
I agree.
Agreed
+1
Completely agre with @therealwolf here and would like to add that the top 20 witnesses currently earn to much (even at low Steem prices) and would like to suggest some kind of decrease in the top 20 witness rewards to fund development.
Somewhere in the range of 10-20% .
Yup..
Good food for thought, @andablackwidow… How would you stimulate search for a quality content, then?
Simple answer - I wouldn't. If by quality content you mean what is organically popular, then you have Hot and Active. If you mean quality by some arbitrary judgement, then you have Feed and mechanism of resteem. There would still be problems arising from the fact that money dictates voting power. I'd see reputation revamped and made into deciding factor when it comes to rewarding authors. Since unlike money, reputation is not transferable, there would be no need to limit time when your vote gives reward. After all we put "the best quality content" in libraries and museums where people can pay to see it not for just 7 days after creation, but throughout centuries. Same should be true in Steem. In such setting authors wouldn't need to draw attention immediately, they could focus on lasting quality instead and it would naturally fend for itself.
Elimination of curation rewards is a small step in that direction.
I think that horse left the stall a long time ago...