Interesting idea, but I don't think it'll work in practice. Why would any post author offer non-zero additional curation rewards? If these rewards are pooled and distributed, you get a tragedy of the commons situation where nobody will want to sacrifice their individual profit for the common good. If these rewards are distributed on a per-post basis, then we have to make the rewards visible to the curators, otherwise curators will have no information to make a curation decision based on. But this would distort the curation market, leading curators to upvote posts with rewards, essentially allowing richer users to have a larger megaphone than others. The end result would be that users end up having to buy visibility, which would be the end of a democratic Steemit.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Haha, I'm not sure where you got the idea that Steemit is democratic. ;) We already have the situation that the richest people are the ones who decide what content gets heard. It's important that we keep the incentives in place to make sure this pay-to-play is transparent.
My proposal is specifically to do this on a per-post basis; leading to what you call "a distortion of the curation market." I think that rather than distorting the curation market, it would simply raise the curation rewards - we'd end up with a setting where basically every post is offering X% curation reward, where X is some large number close to 100%.
I see, I was assuming your intent was that the curation reward was more like a bounty split amongst the curators. But I just learned that curation rewards for early voters are already split with the author -- which I wasn't aware of. So with that in mind, your proposal makes more sense.