The question is how do we both ensure authors and investors both have a way to share in the rewards that most of us are happy with?
I think we should go back to a 50/50 model. Currently it is 75% authors 25% curators but used to be 50/50 which was better imo.
According to this rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1%25_rule_(Internet_culture) only 1% of users actively create content, so why should the 1% authors receive more than the 99% lurkers?
Someone was saying recently that there is too many authors compared to readers on steemit. I believe a 50/50 could rebalance this ratio a bit. It's important that we have engaged users that actually read content..
"so why should the 1% authors receive more than the 99% lurkers?"
Well, the obvious answer is 1 author provides more value than 99 lurkers. Or 999 lurkers. Or 9 million lurkers. Lurkers are useless.
Curators are not lurkers, they are hard workers who can't be differentiated from lurkers by 99.9% of us other than by stalking the steemd page and looking for votes.
I'm defining lurker as non-author who doesn't vote.
I fully agree that curation should be more rewarding, but perhaps something between 25% and 50% would help. Maybe a small portion of the pool each day could be set aside as a boost to curation payouts. Perhaps the formula itself needs changing.
This jerrybanfield post is the first time I'm seeing your comments. Great curation efforts!
I'll be following you now.
Thank you for your support!
I am also agree with the 50/50 but then you also should re-think the VP curve ... The people should have the possibilitty to vote more often ... In general people vote less now and they tend to go to authors who always get good rewards... I know everybody is not here for the money but the majority part are...
With the equality update it does seem like an adjustment to increase curation would be helpful!