While giving curators a bigger cut approximate incentives for holding stake, it also places more responsibilities on the community to curate good content.
The last thing you need is a community where people are blindly curating.
It's all an experiment. I think it's healthy people are testing stuff out.
The 50/50 is probably just to see if HF21 would destroy the ecosystem.
I am for sure grateful for their experiments of 50/50
However when all the tokens seem to go that direction I start to wonder what they're seeing.
I'm worried they're thinking about the money they're freely giving out (including to themselves) and making sure they have a method to keep enriching themselves. But that's an obviously pessimistic view.
More so i'm worried they're pessimistically viewing their own system and that people won't value the tokens that were not earned and also has no utility. Seems like utility and effort can do the same to increase value. As well as a strong effort to bring in new users or users who want to impact that community with a large vote.
And really, what is the correct incentive in terms of split?
Personally, I think each community should be able to change that spread as needed. Not sure if it's currently possible.
As for pessimism, I don't think so. I have decided to associate myself with communities I'm interested in, as well as taking moderation seriously. The communities that don't follow their own rules and visions, or the lack thereof, are destined to fail. Those who do may stand a chance to shine after the test of time.
On a side note, I don't think this should be tagged #stem or #steemace. Just saying.