This is true, but it still doesn't change the fact 50/50 makes curation much more attractive then 25/75, thus people would be more willing to delegate to curation bots that put in the effort to find content that will get a lot of upvotes and not delegate to bid bots.
Might make it more attractive to curators who for the most part are racing to vote at the right time more than actually finding good content which is what true curation is .. it wont make it more attractive to content creators who see more of their effort going to more bots.
Bid bots are not going anywhere. Doesn't matter how much you tinker with curation splits. That just changes their income pattern.
Some people value the work they put into creating content. Those people will take a serious look at this platform and decide to move on.
It comes down to why curate when I can sell my vote for 3x the returns? Put curstors aside, investors who want to maximize their returns (the only curators that can make a diff must also be investors to lock up 6 figures in capital) - their options right now are sell their votes, delegate to projects and or curate. As we can clearly see from the last year, vote selling is the route most deep pocket SP resort to because it is by far the easiest and most effective way to make more SP. if curation made more SP, investors would actually do it. Someone said between me and two other whales, no one else even curates anymore. I wonder why.
Posted using Partiko iOS
Why not make it more attractive for substantial stakeholders to delegate to development projects? That is a positive pressure on price that will produce capital gains, instead of the negative pressure that curation rewards add to for votesellers.
This is short term thinking and why I don't think it matters.
If you can't see the value in not selling your vote don't ask someone else to either
Well, instead of hopelessly tweaking curation, why don't we tackle voteselling head on? Hain't heard no one taking that on since @ned spoke in Korea, and that's the actual problem.
If I got a broke leg, don't paint my toenails. Set my damn leg. The problem is profiteering, and curation rewards only add to the extractive produce of that, at least by lowering the cost of buying votes. @ned attested to the potential of oracles to eliminate that problem.
What are some other potential solutions?
The best example is Dtube .
Why do you think i still remain at youtube even when the payment is less? because i am pay at youtube base on view that serve with ads.
Here i am given only 7 days to cover my cost.
My video is not cheap to make.
The people here if so good, they would have upvote my video instead most of the time i get less than 1 USD.
I will be getting my second 100 USD soon next month or next 2 month time .
yes , it take 6 to 7 month to earn 100 USD but compare to Dtube , it is even worse. It is like working for free and get nothing back .
YouTube gives you ad rev not YouTube stock. Once steem becomes more popular and projects start sharing ad rev, the author will get the bulk of the ad share and curators will get none of it. Steem is for distribution and a second layer like SMT for actual rewards. Steem does not scale as a reward token, that is why SMTs are being made. If you had 10k site all using Steem it would be spread so thin barely any new content would get upvoted.
what you say is theory until it really happens. But in real life, the thing did not go as plan due to steemian selfishness.
Can you promise that my video will get the value it deserves?
sometimes it gets almost to no vote and yet people watch it.
May I know who is going to cover my cost to make it?
I can make for free but i still need to eat and live somewhere.