If it's okay, I'm going to abstain from voting because I have a clear bias; the vast majority of my rewards come from curating. It would be interesting to see if most of the **yeses** come curators and most of the **nos** come from authors. I would certainly benefit from a 50/50 switch. My concern would be; how would this affect the blockchain or the value of STEEM? 

I think that we could all agree that on a platform like this, the authors and curators have near equal importance because one cannot exist without the other, so a 50/50 acknowledgment makes sense. The way it's set up at the moment, the curators are really undervalued, and *incentivization* fails because if one's actions aren't rewarded, incentive is lost. If I upvote a post and am not rewarded, where's the incentive to upvote again? 

A new user comes onboard because he or she heard about this amazing platform that rewards you for posting and upvoting; they get an account with 15SP; find a post they think is really good; upvote; a week later, nothing. How can that person not feel bamboozled? When I first began curating, this was my experience, and I stopped upvoting for a while. If a 50/50 change does not negatively affect the blockchain or the value of STEEM, then it would create real incentive. There's no reason why a 100% upvote at more than 80% voting power should not return at least 0.001 SP.

That said, if the 50/50 causes authors to be left empty-handed, we would be facing the same dilemma as with the curating. But I don't think that would be the case, because if a curator gets the minimal reward, so would the author.