What do you think about this experiment? It seems that it enables an author to decide whether they want to stick by current blockchain code (order of curation votes matters) or to use @reward.app which will distribute curation rewards based solely on vote weight (order of curation votes doesn't matter). In addition, it even enables the author to specify a percentage higher than 50% as the post's curation reward.
One thing which I really love about it is the granularity of control - different authors can choose which rules they want to use (they're not stuck with the blockchain's rules), and can even use different rules for different posts - e.g. for post A I might go for 50/50 split, but for post B I might go for 20/80 split. So customizable!
I fear that after authors could choose the percentage themselves, in the end that would lead to more and more reduced author rewards.
I see that risk, yes. What about downvoting low-quality content? To my mind, this can serve as a counterbalance to low-quality high-rewarded posts. So if curators vote for a post because it will give them more rewards, but the post is not seen as high quality by others, then they will lose their curation rewards when those others downvote.
At least in theory. I know in practice we've had a lot of challenges with having downvoting work well.
I fear (again) that the biggest 'curators' (even if many of them don't deserve that name as they just don't work but let programs work) are big stakeholders, so I doubt that there would be enough users with courage to downvote them.
I think many stakeholders would choose the biggest curation rewards (no matter the content) instead of considering that in the long term it would be beneficial for HIVE to see great authors succeed.
If you (and too many others) are against '75/25' maybe the self-vote problem could be also solved with flags, because I think apart from this mentioned, and hopefully not too serious disadvantage, my idea to make curation rewards independent from the date of the upvotes and the number and weight of other upvotes could help to solve the curation problem.
I am not against '75/25', I am for distributing the reward pool to high-quality content and if '75/25' can help that when combined with your idea of decoupling the order of the votes then I'm all for. I wonder how such experiments can be made in an easier way. A thing I liked about @reward.app is that it allows making an experiment without having a hardfork. It's much faster and more granular (not everybody has to abide by the same rules). So I wonder if they are able to provide the ability for different communities to use @reward.app to experiment with different models: '75/25', '90/10', with order of votes mattering, without order of votes mattering, etc., etc. I think that can open the door to essentially having behavior like SMTs without having to code in all of that in the blockchain. @acidyo @roomservice what do you think? Is this possible?