Even if people were to only upvote content with 80-90% curation I still think it wouldn't be a problem because it will make curation so profitable that many people will invest in SP thus increasing the price of steem (authors payout )
Also according to this rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1%25_rule_(Internet_culture) only 1% of internet users actively create content while the other 99% consume it, so to me it makes perfect sense that authors gets 10% and curators(consumers) 90%.
Interesting view.
It seems to lean in favor of consumers to the detriment of creators. There's a reason content creators earn good money, it's hard work. Hitting an upvote button is not especially for a bot.
While the rule you mentioned is true, giving 90% to the consumers will disincentivize content creators.
Why would they do all that work when all they have to do is read and upvote?
Curators need steem power to earn rewards whereas authors can keep earning while cashing out every dime they earn.
Giving 90% to consumers is important to bring the system closer to a natural state. On steemit there is almost no readers and people are earning hundreds of dollars per posts, I mean are authors on steemit interested only about the money or do they care about the size of their audience?
A system like this is not sustainable, we need to incentivize people to buy steem power , its because people power up that authors earn anything at all.
This does make a lot of sense actually.
Good economics in this case in point.
I spend a lot of time writing lengthy blog posts, and though I attract some upvotes from dolphins and small whales from time to time, it's not nearly as much as I'd like (because it's not incentivized for them to do so)
In most cases, it's more rewarding for me to re-invest my payouts into bid bots
But I find this ridiculous... I put in a lot of work (half a day's work per post minimum), and it's content people do enjoy reading when they get around to it, but at the same time, I would much rather have a genuine audience of readers, say an audience ten fold, and earn 90% less on post-payouts.
Because that would eliminate the incentive for me to pay for my upvotes, and my content would reach a larger audience, which is exactly what I want.
I think my content is currently rewarded fairly for what it's worth, given that I've only just started. However, the economic environment in which I am contributing my content, is not conducive to me growing my audience.
So your point hits home very hard.
I would gladly lower my author rewards to 20% if it meant I'd have a 500% increase in my visibility (through upvotes and resteems)
Does that make sense? It certainly does to me
Umm Not Sure . This may work for Posts which are written or photographs taken by people on their phones and DSLRs .
But what if Steemit platforms actually end up growing to the point where it competes with youtube and people who make professional videos by investing money come on board. Content like documentaries , Short Films etc are Expensive to produce.
Would the growth be so massive with the above mentioned model that 10-20% reward will compensate the costs ? I am not sure .....And in case the costs don't add up steemit will become the dumping ground of global content while Quality content moves to other more profitable platforms ....