I've never seen a real explanation for the change from 50/50 to 75/25, but maybe I missed it. IIRC, this is also when the rule change was made that switched early curation rewards to the author, another change that seemed completely unreasonable to me (most voters would have no idea that by voting early they gave away their curation rewards).
The only thing that ever made sense to me was that the guy who decided to make the change was posting a lot at the time and those posts had very high rewards. AFAICT, mostly what the change caused was a lot more crap posts and self-voting of such posts.
Its looking more and more like the farther we get from the original design the worse things get.
Have we jumped the shark?
Mistakes were made, but I think they are fixable. My belief is that most of the changes required aren't that difficult.
Then why the obstinancy at the top?
No changes until after smt's?
We should already have downvotes separate from rep harming flags.
This change isnt even mentioned anymore because of the futility.
Personally, i dont like betting the farm on promises that a new token will fix our broken coin.
How does issuing new fiat tokens backed by a broken fiat coin fix anything?
The folks are unlikely to be convinced, imo.
If we had let the whale experiment play out, likely we would have a middle class, excited new users, and could look at raising the soft cap on voting.
Having avoided rewarding those with dumping immediately as their goal for nearly two years, and counting.
I hope this new peristroika from the top leads to something changing sooner rather than later.
The auction itself makes sense (if you can autovote immediately then the value of such 'curation' is low) but giving it to the author makes no sense and it is pretty reasonable in hindsight to view it as a money grab. The new method of returning it to the pool makes a lot more sense.