>This is true, but it still doesn't change the fact 50/50 makes curation much more attractive then 25/75, thus people would be more willing to delegate to curation bots that put in the effort to find content that will get a lot of upvotes and not delegate to bid bots.

Might make it more attractive to curators who for the most part are racing to vote at the right time more than actually finding good content which is what true curation is .. it wont make it more attractive to content creators who see more of their effort going to more bots. 

Bid bots are not going anywhere. Doesn't matter how much you tinker with curation splits. That just changes their income pattern. 

Some people value the work they put into creating content. Those people will take a serious look at this platform and decide to move on.

That's exactly why @yabapmatt's proposed positive curation reward for downvoting cannot work, as two equal votes, one up and one down, should negate all rewards for the content, but his proposal would extract curation rewards for the voters anyway.

Great point!

Thanks for summing this up. I've had a very similar view on the proposal ever since it came up and none of the arguments so far have been able to convince me. 

There's a lot broken about the platform, but I also don't think the 50/50 will improve it, it has potential to make it worse.

What do we want to achieve? We want quality content to be created, made visible and easily consumable for users so that they are motivating to stay on the platform and engage with it. Would we want to distinguish between certain types of content? Sure. Would we want to incentivize creating long-living content (which probably is more work and therefore bears higher opportunity cost)? I would think so. Will there be bots exploiting any system we set up? Most definitely.

With 50/50, no more quality content will be produced (less incentive may even mean less of it). Will curators looking for rewards vote for quality content or the content that is most likely to receive large votes after they voted? Is that different from what it is now? Hard to imagine.

Posted using [Partiko Android](https://partiko.app/referral/grintsch)

I absolutely agree with your reasoning here, except in the DAO.  Perhaps I misunderstand what you mean, but I understood that author rewards are going to be redirected (as inflation, prior to being filtered out via upvotes) in part to the DAO.

This amounts to a tax, and the creation of a central taxing authority, which equates to a form of involuntary government.  I'm agin' it.  I'd be happy to pick and choose developments or individual devs to support, with upvotes, beneficiary rewards, or any *voluntary* mechanism.  

Please clarify if I have misunderstood.

Also, @edicted recently posted regarding making curation rewards a slider chosen by authors, who could set curation to 100% if they so chose, or at any level they want.  I'm fully in favor of this, as it empower individuals to make that decision - which is the way a decentralized blockchain should work IMHO.

As we see that folks are milking curation rewards as simply a mechanism for extracting rent from their stake, adding flags to the mechanisms they can do that with is certain to be similarly abused.  Further, @freddio pointed out that voters mutually flagging and upvoting would both extract curation rewards, and this would bollux the rewards mechanism.  

Presently, flagging is a negative curation reward, which then returns Steem to the pool (before it leaves the pool at all, yeah).  @yabapmatt's proposal would instead reward those ostensibly curative flags and increase the draw on the inflation pool.  In many cases today, in the flagwar you mention, up and down votes cancel each other out (or at least eliminate author and curation rewards altogether, since they cannot be negative (although.... )).  

Even if there's a separate pool for flag rewards, it would still draw from the source: inflation.  So a post that has been reduced to zero rewards for the author would still produce rewards for the voters - creating 100% curation rewards.

Whaddya say @yabapmatt?