I'm not too smart to comprehend fully everything that is been said here. It looks like a good idea. However I feel the proposal is highly speculative and can equally go wrong. A 20% increase in my curation reward means nothing to me. To a whale it is significant. Doesn't mean they will discover my content. The reliance on whales to act accordingly should stop. Ever since the introduction of falls this blockchain has been less about them and more about the people using steem. I think we should keep it that way Chances are they would simply join a curation trail and that's that.
I don't see my activities changing with if these things are been implemented. Most likely my activities will reduce. I would simply leverage on autovotes like I have and share my creative resource amongst different platforms.
I think the problem of content discovery can only be solved if more power (stake) is invested in community. We saw a significant change in distribution when dapps arrived. This is because they got delegation to run their operates and reward users of their dapps. The same cab happen if steemit empowers communities like they did dapps.
Can we develop front ends with unique algorithms that promote quality posts based on engagement and other meaningful yardsticks? Isn't that doable? Won't that change the face of our trending pages?
I also believe that if accounts that are supposed to track spamming activities are doing their job effectively we will also reduce the impact of bad actors. People act badly because that's just who they are. It has little to do with economic policies. I'm not hoping that a change in steem's economic model will deter them. They will simply find their way around it. Like you said there are loopholes and they can exploit that.
Posted using Partiko Android
The most popular social media platforms spend billions perfecting their content sorting algorithm even when votes (likes, favorites, thumbs up, hearts etc) generally reflect honest opinions. It's far more difficult to do this well when votes are generally dishonest here. And it's not just about sorting, it's also about rewarding good content, which this does not solve.
Economic policies have a very potent impact on behavior. If your society rewarded you with $100 every time you drove under the influence instead of giving you a fine and suspending your license, they'll likely be far more drunk drivers.
You have the align the behavior you want, in our case honest voting, with the right rewards.
It is actually a doubling of curation reward. The current asymmetry between 75 and 25 introduces a leverage effect where shifting reward from author to curator means a lot more to the curator percentage-wise than it does to the author.
It is true that for the very smallest stakeholders, even 2x curation reward won't even be noticed (and may still round down to zero and still not be paid at all), but there are many in the middle for whom this will be a very significant increase and encourage more attention to curation, even if not whales. It is also more of an incentive to power up and increase your curation rewards.
Absolutely. Doubling curation rewards starts to sound really appealing at even 15/20k SP held. At current market prices, that isn't an enormous stake to the western world, and I would like to think that individuals and businesses could see that % much more interesting than at present.