One thing not mentioned here (at least not explicitly and clearly broken out) is that one of the purposes of the auction was actually to reduce curation rewards on "dumb curation" (authors that everyone knows are going to trend every time) and allocate that budget to authors (and also non-dumb curation) instead. As you mentioned in the post, with HF24 curation rewards are typically 25-30%. With the auction going away, fully 50% will go to curation, including "dumb curation" which means roughly 30% lower author rewards, but higher curation rewards even to less optimizing curators. Good? Bad? I don't know, it is hard to say, but definitely different.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Maybe I am misunderstanding this portion, would this mean that curators will get more at the expense of the authors?
In the aggregate, since the portion of curation that was previously returned to the pool (and then goes to increase author rewards on other content) won't be. Curators will literally get 50% now and authors 50%. Which is entirely as advertised, so I guess no one should be surprised by it, but the effect of the previous system was somewhat different.
Thanks for the explanation. Are you a fan of 50/50 or would you like to return to 75/25? From my point of view I liked 75/25 because overtime any whales share would be diluted(they are giving out more rewards than they take in). The new direction seems to be based on allowing people to get more rewards for staking.
This wasn't what actually happened though.
Massive delegations to bid bots and paid votes meant that whales got more like 90% (combo of curation and the bids) and legitimate authors got almost nothing (sure you got 75% as an author on paper, but to get any real votes you had to pay for them in practice, giving most of that back).
The change to 50/50 was part of a package meant to discourage vote selling (including bid bots) and encourage more merit-based voting. And it somewhat worked (there is still some vote selling, but it just isn't as rampant). That included downvotes, the curve, and switch to 50/50. Perhaps only downvotes is enough, but perhaps not. I'd rather change one thing at a time (in this case the curve) and see how that goes first rather than rip out all of the changes that actually worked and bet it all on downvotes alone being enough to keep vote selling from growing back into a bigger problem.
Staking might be a factor too. I mean if staking is a big draw and it keeps the price of HIVE higher, then authors benefit that way too. Personally, staking isn't really something that gets me excited, but I recognize that others feel differently.
I agree that bidbots did ruin the 75/25. I will defintely be keeping an eye on how things turn out a year from now.
The way I was seeing it play out long term is that bidbots were kind of being handled somewhat by the free downvotes thing. I do agree that the curve changing is a good change.
How about 55/45 or 60/40? I realize 50/50 and 75/25 is easier to comprehend due to multiples of 25% and most people can easily thinkg of that.
I don't really have an opinion on the number but I do have an opinion that how well it works overall (and by "works" I mean more broadly including growth, not just the narrow notion of "rewarding authors") is more important than the number.
Interesting to see how this will work out in practice, but I look forward to these changes which make reward distribution in my opinion fairer and easier to understand and use.