I think the only flaw is:
... if the entity wants to act in an optimal manner.
I'm not convinced any curve will dissuade an entity that doesn't want to act in an optimal manner. And I'm not convinced that the people we're talking about adhere to the description of "optimal."
Meaning, there are plenty of people who will act out no matter what the curve is. I was happy with whatever curve was in play. I'm happy with the current "curve." I'll be happy with whatever replaces it now. I do not see the curve as a magic bullet to get bad actors in line.
It doesn't have to change behavior to have benefit. If people still want to create a zillion little bot accounts and carry out hidden spam for the purpose of milking rewards, they can, but they will earn less and the rest of the community will earn more. That's still a win.
Well, limited benefit is a like a base hit when bases are loaded. What we'd all prefer would be a home run. It takes the same time to swing either way. Let's target more productive mechanisms and decrease the possibility of only getting a base hit.
I flag trash. You have received a flag.
Yes, that is the aim. The tricky question is how much less will they earn so that it does not significantly disrupt the system - or even lead it down towards an unwanted attractor.
The rest of the community earns a whopping 4¢ per day spread out to the whole community. It’s effectively a no-upside change. So why do it?
It's bad but where do you get that number? I think it's more like $1 a day or perhaps $2 a day, which is bad for people in developed countries but not as bad as you think for people in developing countries. You can make some posts on Steem and in theory do okay if you're in certain parts of the world.
That said, the problem is vote buying and selling, and the fact that quality content gets the same $1-2 as a low quality content. There is no incentive for content quality to improve over time.
Where does the number come from?
Also, I didn't say that I believed it won't change behavior (in fact I believe it will). My comment was explaining that there is still a benefit even if (however unlikely) behavior doesn't change.
Exactly this. A code change doesn't make people suddenly feel an incentive to curate up or down.
Chances are if you are interested in doing those things you are already doing them.
If you are interested in staking as many coins as you can you are probably doing that.
Both things are fine, but they don't change.
While rewards curve changes don't change those basic motivations, changes I propose below in reply to the OP do. It is the ability to extract rewards that drives financial manipulation, and there is no mechanism extant to encourage funding or delegation to development of Steem and the ecosystem. I propose mechanisms to all but eliminate voting for profit rather than curation, and also to encourage investment in development.
Code is like gravity, and changing gravity to discourage profiteering while encouraging productive investment in development is possible - and highly desirable IMHO.
Thanks!
I flag trash. You have received a flag.
It makes it less profitable to spam micro votes
In addition to other changes like curation increases, spamming votes below a certain point could very well be less profitable than curating, which is an economic incentive to adapt behavior