I'm not sure why it's "funny to hear" that we could have a bunch of happy curators: it was one of the key goals of the original design of Steem. And it's certainly a viable premise: people like to vote for things they like, even without an economic incentive.
However, I get the strong feeling that you think this is just a move by whales to get rich off curation rewards. To me, that's mostly a laughable notion as well.
I actually think "good" content creators will get rewarded more under 50/50 rewards, for reasons I've expressed throughout comments here and elsewhere.
100% @blocktrades. I’ve said multiple times that I’m just playing devils advocate, but I tend to lean towards a greater split going to curators because it will incentivize more outward voting.
I think a lot of people are confused and believe that you need a huge stake to earn high curation rewards... it’s actually the opposite that is true: when you have a smaller stake, it’s actually easier to earn a higher “multiple” on your curation reward when you vote before others on a post.
For example, under the current structure if you vote first with $0.10 on a post and then $1.50 worth of votes come in after yours, then your curation reward is $0.10 (equivalent to a self vote)...
However, let’s say a whale with a $100 vote does the same thing and is first on a post: it would take $1500 worth of votes after their $100 to make their vote equivalent to a 100% self vote.
And that’s under the current structure. If curation rewards were to tilt more in favor of curators (or at least, 50/50), then it would become significantly easier for a curator to earn more by curating new and high quality posts that people actually like - regardless of how big your stake is (and actually as I demonstrated, it favors those with a smaller stake).
The original goal of the entire Steem system is to reward outward behavior and in exchange, know that if you produce great content others will also be participating in such outward voting habits and upvote your content as much or likely even more than you upvote their content because it is in everyone’s best economic interest to curate good content.
Obviously, the system isn’t working as intended. I’m not sure if increase curation rewards would solve all the issues, but it could be worth a try. Additionally, I think SMTs are going to change the “tribalism” of Steem and make scalable what is currently unscalable (I.e. better economic incentives for good behavior, better disincentives for bad behavior, content discovery, etc).
Thanks for a response. Good content are being rewarded greatly now from a few specific sources. The new system would leech off misterdelegation to put more in lazy curators pockets.
Yes I don't think someone that is unhappy right now will magically become happy with any system change. Since bitter people tend to stay bitter. As they are annoyed with human behaviour. 50/50 again implies that the curator do as much work as the high Stake holders. They don't. Content creators take the highest risk.
I would agree that your system could work if you want a level playing field. With no true empowered people. But I believe some content creators are 100x better than others in creation. And 50/50 would never attract them to stay.
This isn't about leveling the playing field between content creators and curators. I don't even see this as a fight between them. The goal is to direct rewards towards posts that the majority of stakeholders actually like.
First, 50/50 doesn't imply equal rewards to authors and curators. One person (author) gets 50% of the reward, and the rest is split among many curators. That split is then determined by two things: who curates first and the relative stakes (investment risk) of the curators.
Also, I believe 50/50 curation would end up rewarding those content creators that you think are 10x better more than the current system does. Because the current system just encourages self-voting over finding posts you like.
Thanks again for a nice response,
The majority I just think never will have a good taste. So a rule by the majority may have some benefits just as we see in the world. But I think it will lead to a waste of Steem into the wrong hands. I think it will lead to more mediocrity. A bit like welfare can have some benefits.
If a person just has 15,000 SP then they can simulate one 15% upvote daily from 2M SP account in ROI just by using promotion services. So the power is not in high Stake holders. Proof-of-brain has already outsourced Human curators role.
You can run your own show with just a few thousand Steem and don't even have to look at all the drama. People want to automate more that is very clear. Since it makes their life easy and frictionless.
Of course that makes Stake holders feel awkward in their role as they don't usually have a solid content strategy. They could care less about content many. It becomes artificial and fake to produce something daily if you are not passionate about something.
They should invest in content creators instead of trying to become one themselves by doing mediocre content. Investing in real human brains will give them 10-100x ROI instead of trying to chase small 10-20% boosts in ROI. If they invest in content creators they never have to expand energy themselves to write posts ---> More time over for bigger projects.
I rather have 1 million SP in 1 competent person than spread it out in 1000 mediocre people. 1000 ppl with more Stake may look good on paper. And I'm sure it may even make Steem value grow more than what it currently will.
I think the harder system is good right now since it creates discipline and creates people that values their earned Stake much more. The hard is what makes it great. If something needs to be taken care of and people have high Stake then it can be taken care of. If everyone is just mediocre then that would just breed confusion.