Every member joining PH community is individually messaged and told about PH goals, future, and the reason behind this 50% fund.
You see the strategy of the community as a way to self-vote and that's what you see from your side and that doesn't mean it is the truth and somehow you are trying to convince people that it's the truth, let me tell you how many others see the community in a very different way, they see it as a way to help, support and show our human side by helping others who are really in need for that (Our brothers and sisters from Venezuela and other parts of the world that need us on their side and you always see the impact of the help if you are one of the community).
The way you judged everything like it is a solid truth is so wrong.
Also few things you shall know I guess before judging:
- Members weren't/aren't and will never be forced to add the fund it is completely voluntary from them believing in the goals of the community.
- Posts there don't just get upvoted randomly just because the 50% beneficiary is added, content is read, and based on the quality of your content you will be upvoted.
- It supports everyone based on their content not their power and reputation as I saw in many others communities that you see low power members will sometimes have no upvotes just because they have low power and on the other hand a high power member shares anything no matter the quality of that content is and gets huge number of upvotes.
I hope everyone will have another look at the situation from another angle before judging, peace.
It's a hack, short and simple. They can just continue to curate great content and grow their community by deservingly get more delegations by returning a fair amount of rewards to their delegators like everyone else does. If they want to grow as fast as possible they could remove the cuts they take from themselves as profit so delegators get more, why should the authors be the ones paying for it? You guys literally need a reality check.
Sorry mate but you might have missed a part from what I mentioned, it is what you believe there some people will say as what you just said and it is what you think is right and some others will say we do that because we believe in the community goals, so I suggest before gathering as many people as you can to agree with you, you contact the founder of the community and if you could believe and see the evidence of the fund in the way we (Authors) there see it, it will be the end of endless points of views and if not then it is back to you on what you are going to do.
Authors there post because they don't think about money as the main priority as much as they think helping others is way more essential.
You've got it backwards, the amount of people giving them 50% beneficiary is pure proof that they are only posting for the rewards, else they get ignored and considering literally everything on the communities trending is with the 50% beneficiary it's not hard to deduce what they're main focus is; money. They can hide their true colors as much as they want but as long as they're taking a cut from each curation return and giving cuts to a leasing service it's costing the authors. It's either an unfair way to gain a lot of stake and later remove the initiative (unfair cause people aren't delegating to them because what they're doing or curating is so amazing, they're just delegating for the higher returns that come from the authors setting beneficiary their way) or just an unfair short term money grab either way. Thankfully the curation curve will change drastically with the next hardfork and most people voting on the same day will get the same returns so we can quit this front-running for maximization bullshit and as some people in this community marketing some 23% APR on their curation trails.