The current economy is paying content indifferent voting behavior (self voting, vote selling to bid bots, etc.) 4x more than honest curation.
I vote on content, nothing proposed for the EIP is going to really change the vote habits of the larger accounts. My vote at 100% is slightly less than four cents. Which means I only need to find 20 or so post that I like and value enough to vote on. Most days I do not have a problem finding those 20 people to vote on.
No one is going to bat an eye at my 100% or 50% vote. It is simply impossible for a large account to do "Honest Curation". Look at how hard it is for you to find things to vote Honestly on. If you do not want your account sitting at 100% vote power earning nothing, no rewards, I know some people do not mind that, an investor wants to use his money/vote power to make more money. It will do no good and be impossible for him to find a sufficient amount of content in a reasonable time to provide a vote that will not be downvoted due to providing excessive rewards.
How long before a large account that can vote at $20.00 for 100% vote, $10.00 for a 50% vote, before his votes are being downvoted? how long before he decides he has spent enough time trying to find 20 things to vote on and gives up? As the price and the value of steem rises, the problem is only going to become more difficult. It would be nice if people only voted on stuff they found, on stuff they read, but the larger the account the more stuff you need to find to give a reasonable vote on that is not going to seem like an excessive reward.
Unless of course the whole idea is to get a lot of content voted up to the multiples of 1000's value wise to show the rest of the world how much money can be made on steem blockchain.
I do not like the bid bots, I do not like the vote selling, but the reality is that it is impossible to do away with them. They let the larger accounts be an active part of the steem economy with out sending it back to the days of five cent value per steem.
Ask your self will any of these changes stop you from self voting every now and then just to lower your vote power and have it earn a little bit of steem for you?
You got one affirmative answer in this post, at least on paper. Though it was a 'maybe'.
And nobody is saying it's going to change everything. But the new rules are wired so that they get more if they do more (rather than just being lazy). So there's at least an incentive to shift. That actually goes for bid bots as well.
I guess when it is all said and done then we will know the outcome. Then people can find the next thing to change so they can move on and put it all behind or on the back burner. I still re-call all the talk about RC's how that was going to Allow everyone to create free accounts to onboard their friends and family, how it was going to control spam content on the steem blockchain, how it would improve content quality and provide things for manual curation. It did not happen how envisioned or at least how it was presented to the people, and I do not see this helping the general user, nor improving content, nor improving curation. I fail to see how this will fix anything other than allowing for the pis-ant flag accounts to flag 25% more often since it will be a free 25%. So instead of 100 flags they will be able to do 125 flags, or more.
I have read all the post put out by steemitblog, not one of them has left me with a clear understanding of what the problem is and what they are trying to fix.
There are two flag issue's one-abusive flagging of individuals and specific types of content. - - two - not enough flagging for excessive rewards.
Curation - post get voted in the first hour or two then curation efforts are over because there is no incentive to curate after the fact. a 50/50 split is not going to fix that.
I would love to see what would happen to a post, any random post, that a whale felt like giving a 100% upvote on because they liked it. When looking at the votes from vote trails most of them are in the single digit or less percentage wise and it makes no difference as to how much Steem Power the account hold. Those with 60 SP vote at 1% as often as those with 100,000 SP vote at 1%.
I honestly do not see how a single one of the proposals are going to help the steem economic situation or the social situation on the blockchain.
Well, you mentioned point (2) on flagging for excessive rewards, and that's the main upside, as mentioned here.
Regarding curation, you are quite wrong about that, and in fact I feel this is something that more people should be aware of. You get back 1/8th of your value even if you vote last (and the curation curve is designed for preserving a minimum incentive to curate). Of course, you can say that's a garbage amount, but it's quite crucial, because as you say, a lot of people are under the impression that after the votes are done there's no reason to vote on top. And that's just not true.
But right, that's not relevant to 50/50 at all. What it is relevant to is that it gives more motivation than before to curate vs self vote. Obviously some people will prefer to be lazy, but the way things are designed, curating really gets quite a boost (especially with the curve).
That is a point that I and no doubt most others miss about the curation reward system, otherwise there would be more individuals like me that vote when we see, read, or enjoy the post regardless of when the post was made if it is in the seven day window. Most post never receive secondary votes after 36 hours of being posted.