Should We Raise Curation Rewards From 25/75 To 50/50? by theycallmedan

voter	rshares	pct
tshering-tamang	23,119,536,088	23.6%
johnhtims	3,172,313,776	100%
mixr	978,123,660	5%
dustbunny	21,337,808,306	6.71%

@krnel · Apr 23 '19

LOL, not likely. Of all the changes that have been made in forks over the past 3 years, can you name one that has been reversed?

👍 valued-customer

`post_id`	73,613,294
`author`	krnel
`permlink`	re-amico-ae6f954f-dfe7-4fb9-b63d-1593a561e55e-20190423t215937350z
`category`	dpoll
`json_metadata`	{"tags":["dpoll"],"app":"steemit\/0.1"}
`created`	2019-04-23 21:59:39
`last_update`	2019-04-23 21:59:39
`depth`	2
`children`	1
`net_rshares`	9,450,990,103
`last_payout`	2019-04-30 21:59:39
`cashout_time`	1969-12-31 23:59:59
`total_payout_value`	0.000 SBD
`curator_payout_value`	0.000 SBD
`pending_payout_value`	0.000 SBD
`promoted`	0.000 SBD
`body_length`	128
`author_reputation`	954,992,586,021,436
`root_title`	"Should We Raise Curation Rewards From 25/75 To 50/50?"
`beneficiaries`	`[]`
`max_accepted_payout`	1,000,000.000 SBD
`percent_steem_dollars`	0
`author_curate_reward`	""

voter	weight	wgt%	rshares	pct	time
valued-customer	0 B		9,450,990,103	25%

@amico · Apr 23 '19

Good point!
However, if no changes have been restored in the past, it does not mean it cannot be done. ;)

`post_id`	73,613,518
`author`	amico
`permlink`	re-krnel-re-amico-ae6f954f-dfe7-4fb9-b63d-1593a561e55e-20190423t220701148z
`category`	dpoll
`json_metadata`	{"tags":["dpoll"],"app":"steemit\/0.1"}
`created`	2019-04-23 22:06:30
`last_update`	2019-04-23 22:06:30
`depth`	3
`children`	0
`net_rshares`	0
`last_payout`	2019-04-30 22:06:30
`cashout_time`	1969-12-31 23:59:59
`total_payout_value`	0.000 SBD
`curator_payout_value`	0.000 SBD
`pending_payout_value`	0.000 SBD
`promoted`	0.000 SBD
`body_length`	105
`author_reputation`	44,100,594,541,767
`root_title`	"Should We Raise Curation Rewards From 25/75 To 50/50?"
`beneficiaries`	`[]`
`max_accepted_payout`	1,000,000.000 SBD
`percent_steem_dollars`	10,000

@clixmoney · Apr 23 '19

Voted for 
  - Yes


Of course, because people will be more happy to curate, investors will invest more in steem power and steem will be just better !

👍 joythewanderer, mixr

voter	weight	wgt%	rshares	pct	time
joythewanderer	0 B		8,658,447,043	1%
mixr	0 B		977,149,497	5%

@fatherfaith · Apr 23 '19

Voted for 
  - No

👍 bidesign, mixr

voter	weight	wgt%	rshares	pct	time
bidesign	0 B		3,504,900,852	100%
mixr	0 B		976,168,600	5%

@atnazo · Apr 23 '19

I think now is good model, but maybe steemit need a changes to rise steem to the moon!

👍 mixr

`post_id`	73,612,999
`author`	atnazo
`permlink`	re-theycallmedan-should-we-raise-curation-rewards-from-2575-to-5050-20190423t214907675z
`category`	dpoll
`json_metadata`	{"tags":["dpoll"],"app":"steemit\/0.1"}
`created`	2019-04-23 21:49:03
`last_update`	2019-04-23 21:49:03
`depth`	1
`children`	0
`net_rshares`	975,150,140
`last_payout`	2019-04-30 21:49:03
`cashout_time`	1969-12-31 23:59:59
`total_payout_value`	0.000 SBD
`curator_payout_value`	0.000 SBD
`pending_payout_value`	0.000 SBD
`promoted`	0.000 SBD
`body_length`	86
`author_reputation`	297,394,774,523,460
`root_title`	"Should We Raise Curation Rewards From 25/75 To 50/50?"
`beneficiaries`	`[]`
`max_accepted_payout`	1,000,000.000 SBD
`percent_steem_dollars`	10,000
`author_curate_reward`	""

voter	weight	wgt%	rshares	pct	time
mixr	0 B		975,150,140	5%

@bidesign · Apr 23 '19 (edited)

Voted for 
  - No


Use your own selection abilities for qualified labor. (hope this is a good idea=) What i try to mean?. Reward the authors. Do not put the responsibility to trend setters hands. Of course It is both abusable for authors and curators.

👍 blockking, oriofori

voter	weight	wgt%	rshares	pct	time
blockking	0 B		383,024,443	100%
oriofori	0 B		0	100%

Interesting, you mean 100% author reward 0% curator?

👍 urme33, alamin33

`post_id`	73,616,685
`author`	theycallmedan
`permlink`	re-bidesign-481036f8-f8d0-4ce3-9ba0-9e388c548c3f-20190423t235014361z
`category`	dpoll
`json_metadata`	{"tags":["dpoll"],"app":"steemit\/0.1"}
`created`	2019-04-23 23:50:18
`last_update`	2019-04-23 23:50:18
`depth`	2
`children`	5
`net_rshares`	8,292,026,607
`last_payout`	2019-04-30 23:50:18
`cashout_time`	1969-12-31 23:59:59
`total_payout_value`	0.000 SBD
`curator_payout_value`	0.000 SBD
`pending_payout_value`	0.000 SBD
`promoted`	0.000 SBD
`body_length`	52
`author_reputation`	402,202,202,441,317
`root_title`	"Should We Raise Curation Rewards From 25/75 To 50/50?"
`beneficiaries`	`[]`
`max_accepted_payout`	1,000,000.000 SBD
`percent_steem_dollars`	0
`author_curate_reward`	""

voter	weight	wgt%	rshares	pct	time
alamin33	0 B		382,219,753	17%
urme33	0 B		7,909,806,854	17%

@bidesign · Apr 24 '19 (edited)

Actually yes. it is just a proposition and there would another that better and against this one. Also i am not a master of economics nor politica and using steemit close to one year. But as  existentially hierarcy there is first content before selection. In my opinion it is not an investment like taking your money from your right pocket to left one. You must be investing to platforms technology and usage. One of your responsibility is to market it by something like real data. You can not sell a fake product it is not fair. You must use this technology. Sorry but go invest on other things that you can fully control or take people in steemit with membership fee  or CV or invite. Also sorry but it is not good making puppets from people. Also expecting satisfaction from investment is not right. People must be more professional. You are not selling satisfaction of capitalism You are selling real data as how it is. Bla bla

Please inform me for my faults, missing points


Hope i could tell

May be you will like this movie:
Dinner for Schmucks
https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0427152/


Thanks for interest

👍 blockking

`post_id`	73,618,431
`author`	bidesign
`permlink`	bidesign-re-theycallmedan-re-bidesign-481036f8-f8d0-4ce3-9ba0-9e388c548c3f-20190424t003901508z
`category`	dpoll
`json_metadata`	{"app":"partiko","client":"ios"}
`created`	2019-04-24 00:39:03
`last_update`	2019-04-24 01:08:03
`depth`	3
`children`	4
`net_rshares`	105,650,404
`last_payout`	2019-05-01 00:39:03
`cashout_time`	1969-12-31 23:59:59
`total_payout_value`	0.000 SBD
`curator_payout_value`	0.000 SBD
`pending_payout_value`	0.000 SBD
`promoted`	0.000 SBD
`body_length`	1,110
`author_reputation`	17,919,807,223,753
`root_title`	"Should We Raise Curation Rewards From 25/75 To 50/50?"
`beneficiaries`	`[]`
`max_accepted_payout`	1,000,000.000 SBD
`percent_steem_dollars`	10,000
`author_curate_reward`	""

voter	weight	wgt%	rshares	pct	time
blockking	0 B		105,650,404	100%

4 replies

@meesterboom · Apr 23 '19

$0.02

Voted for 
  - Yes


I vote yes. If we are in beta then let's be in beta and be bold enough to try things. Throw shit (not literally please) and see if it sticks.

👍 dustbunny, amico, joythewanderer, mixr

voter	rshares	pct
joythewanderer	8,659,274,620	1%
amico	10,465,498,091	4%
mixr	973,147,102	5%
dustbunny	29,115,199,117	9.15%

@amico · Apr 23 '19

I completely agree: we have to test, being in beta! ;)

`post_id`	73,613,133
`author`	amico
`permlink`	re-meesterboom-62ac5edc-52b2-4bdf-8b97-cf4803e18821-20190423t215418563z
`category`	dpoll
`json_metadata`	{"tags":["dpoll"],"app":"steemit\/0.1"}
`created`	2019-04-23 21:53:48
`last_update`	2019-04-23 21:53:48
`depth`	2
`children`	0
`net_rshares`	0
`last_payout`	2019-04-30 21:53:48
`cashout_time`	1969-12-31 23:59:59
`total_payout_value`	0.000 SBD
`curator_payout_value`	0.000 SBD
`pending_payout_value`	0.000 SBD
`promoted`	0.000 SBD
`body_length`	54
`author_reputation`	44,100,594,541,767
`root_title`	"Should We Raise Curation Rewards From 25/75 To 50/50?"
`beneficiaries`	`[]`
`max_accepted_payout`	1,000,000.000 SBD
`percent_steem_dollars`	10,000

@senseiteekay · Apr 23 '19

Good point

`post_id`	73,613,240
`author`	senseiteekay
`permlink`	re-meesterboom-62ac5edc-52b2-4bdf-8b97-cf4803e18821-20190423t215730470z
`category`	dpoll
`json_metadata`	{"tags":["dpoll"],"app":"steemit\/0.1"}
`created`	2019-04-23 21:57:30
`last_update`	2019-04-23 21:57:30
`depth`	2
`children`	1
`net_rshares`	0
`last_payout`	2019-04-30 21:57:30
`cashout_time`	1969-12-31 23:59:59
`total_payout_value`	0.000 SBD
`curator_payout_value`	0.000 SBD
`pending_payout_value`	0.000 SBD
`promoted`	0.000 SBD
`body_length`	10
`author_reputation`	37,153,522,909,717
`root_title`	"Should We Raise Curation Rewards From 25/75 To 50/50?"
`beneficiaries`	`[]`
`max_accepted_payout`	1,000,000.000 SBD
`percent_steem_dollars`	10,000

@meesterboom · Apr 23 '19

Hey dude!! Long time no see! How are ya?

👍 senseiteekay

`post_id`	73,613,592
`author`	meesterboom
`permlink`	re-senseiteekay-re-meesterboom-62ac5edc-52b2-4bdf-8b97-cf4803e18821-20190423t220932007z
`category`	dpoll
`json_metadata`	{"tags":["dpoll"],"app":"steemit\/0.1"}
`created`	2019-04-23 22:09:33
`last_update`	2019-04-23 22:09:33
`depth`	3
`children`	0
`net_rshares`	1,507,435,893
`last_payout`	2019-04-30 22:09:33
`cashout_time`	1969-12-31 23:59:59
`total_payout_value`	0.000 SBD
`curator_payout_value`	0.000 SBD
`pending_payout_value`	0.000 SBD
`promoted`	0.000 SBD
`body_length`	40
`author_reputation`	823,295,147,248,484
`root_title`	"Should We Raise Curation Rewards From 25/75 To 50/50?"
`beneficiaries`	`[]`
`max_accepted_payout`	1,000,000.000 SBD
`percent_steem_dollars`	10,000
`author_curate_reward`	""

voter	weight	wgt%	rshares	pct	time
senseiteekay	0 B		1,507,435,893	100%

Yep, we should play all we can early.

👍 meesterboom, milky-concrete, johnhtims

`post_id`	73,614,356
`author`	tarazkp
`permlink`	re-meesterboom-62ac5edc-52b2-4bdf-8b97-cf4803e18821-20190423t223503276z
`category`	dpoll
`json_metadata`	{"tags":["dpoll"],"app":"steemit\/0.1"}
`created`	2019-04-23 22:35:03
`last_update`	2019-04-23 22:35:03
`depth`	2
`children`	0
`net_rshares`	39,028,620,638
`last_payout`	2019-04-30 22:35:03
`cashout_time`	1969-12-31 23:59:59
`total_payout_value`	0.000 SBD
`curator_payout_value`	0.000 SBD
`pending_payout_value`	0.000 SBD
`promoted`	0.000 SBD
`body_length`	37
`author_reputation`	1,394,583,249,195,743
`root_title`	"Should We Raise Curation Rewards From 25/75 To 50/50?"
`beneficiaries`	`[]`
`max_accepted_payout`	1,000,000.000 SBD
`percent_steem_dollars`	0
`author_curate_reward`	""

properties (23)vote details (7)

voter	rshares	pct
meesterboom	30,896,542,013	3%
johnhtims	3,108,312,458	100%
milky-concrete	5,023,766,167	8.33%

@practicalthought · Apr 23 '19

$1.63

Voting no here, as I have no way to log into the poll there without giving a third party my key.

👍 yabapmatt, krnel, valued-customer, barton26, alexjay, mixr, blatenaw

`post_id`	73,613,073
`author`	practicalthought
`permlink`	re-theycallmedan-should-we-raise-curation-rewards-from-2575-to-5050-20190423t215056178z
`category`	dpoll
`json_metadata`	{"tags":["dpoll"],"app":"steemit\/0.1"}
`created`	2019-04-23 21:50:54
`last_update`	2019-04-23 21:50:54
`depth`	1
`children`	42
`net_rshares`	3,729,743,154,594
`last_payout`	2019-04-30 21:50:54
`cashout_time`	1969-12-31 23:59:59
`total_payout_value`	1.406 SBD
`curator_payout_value`	0.223 SBD
`pending_payout_value`	0.000 SBD
`promoted`	0.000 SBD
`body_length`	96
`author_reputation`	33,113,112,148,259
`root_title`	"Should We Raise Curation Rewards From 25/75 To 50/50?"
`beneficiaries`	`[]`
`max_accepted_payout`	1,000,000.000 SBD
`percent_steem_dollars`	10,000
`author_curate_reward`	""

voter	rshares	pct
krnel	45,015,282,631	3%
barton26	8,947,896,542	100%
valued-customer	9,897,290,754	25%
yabapmatt	3,661,698,130,174	100%
alexjay	2,674,762,292	60%
mixr	972,332,092	5%
blatenaw	537,460,109	100%

@theycallmedan · Apr 23 '19 (edited)

$0.02

NVM @emrebeyler thanks! :)

👍 emrebeyler, amico, urme33, dustbunny, alamin33

`post_id`	73,613,353
`author`	theycallmedan
`permlink`	re-practicalthought-re-theycallmedan-should-we-raise-curation-rewards-from-2575-to-5050-20190423t220104950z
`category`	dpoll
`json_metadata`	{"tags":["dpoll"],"users":["emrebeyler"],"app":"steemit\/0.1"}
`created`	2019-04-23 22:01:09
`last_update`	2019-04-23 22:51:06
`depth`	2
`children`	4
`net_rshares`	50,183,878,516
`last_payout`	2019-04-30 22:01:09
`cashout_time`	1969-12-31 23:59:59
`total_payout_value`	0.018 SBD
`curator_payout_value`	0.002 SBD
`pending_payout_value`	0.000 SBD
`promoted`	0.000 SBD
`body_length`	26
`author_reputation`	402,202,202,441,317
`root_title`	"Should We Raise Curation Rewards From 25/75 To 50/50?"
`beneficiaries`	`[]`
`max_accepted_payout`	1,000,000.000 SBD
`percent_steem_dollars`	0
`author_curate_reward`	""

voter	rshares	pct
emrebeyler	23,542,788,085	13%
amico	10,371,725,328	4%
alamin33	48,099,337	17%
urme33	8,493,353,587	17%
dustbunny	7,727,912,179	2.44%

$0.16

I just used keychain....

👍 theycallmedan

`post_id`	73,614,330
`author`	tarazkp
`permlink`	re-theycallmedan-re-practicalthought-re-theycallmedan-should-we-raise-curation-rewards-from-2575-to-5050-20190423t223427166z
`category`	dpoll
`json_metadata`	{"tags":["dpoll"],"app":"steemit\/0.1"}
`created`	2019-04-23 22:34:27
`last_update`	2019-04-23 22:34:27
`depth`	3
`children`	3
`net_rshares`	327,830,339,977
`last_payout`	2019-04-30 22:34:27
`cashout_time`	1969-12-31 23:59:59
`total_payout_value`	0.123 SBD
`curator_payout_value`	0.041 SBD
`pending_payout_value`	0.000 SBD
`promoted`	0.000 SBD
`body_length`	24
`author_reputation`	1,394,583,249,195,743
`root_title`	"Should We Raise Curation Rewards From 25/75 To 50/50?"
`beneficiaries`	`[]`
`max_accepted_payout`	1,000,000.000 SBD
`percent_steem_dollars`	0
`author_curate_reward`	""

properties (23)vote details (9)

@yabapmatt · Apr 23 '19

$0.30

100% this.

For the record, I also vote no to a curation/author split change. While that might be a big deal to a very small number of people who are active on the platform and really understand how it all works, I'm pretty sure it's not the reason why most people don't know about Steem and don't invest in it or use it. I think we should focus our very limited blockchain development resources on things that solve the latter problems.

👍 theycallmedan, mattclarke, krnel, geekgirl, practicalthought, sorin.lite, whatsup, barton26, alexjay

$0.06

I agree with everything with all that, but I still vote yes myself. I see it as a distribution issue that can hurt Steem down the line if the token circulates among vote sellers and self upvoters since  doing that is 3x more profitable in Steem ROI. But you are right, it doesn't matter much right now and isn't the reason a lot of people are not here, we need to build cool shit for that to happen.

👍 lordbutterfly, joythewanderer, urme33, alfonzo

22 replies

$0.63

Umm, I could log in  using keychain.

👍 yabapmatt, theycallmedan, emrebeyler

6 replies

@dreamryder007 · Apr 23 '19

I agree with this.

@geekgirl · Apr 24 '19

$0.22

I disagree. Everybody knows economics is broken, and partly a reason that drives people away. I think it is the most important issue that deserves dev resources and attention. 

Giving 50/50 at least gives a fair chance to encourage use of organic voting and attarct more power ups. 
This may divert some votes to authors for free rather than selling.

If you have noticed as soon as you power up bidbots send you memos with advertising their services and trying to get you use your sp for selling votes.

If you compare 25% return to almost 100%, which would you choose? 50/50 at least improves odds in favor of organic voting.

👍 theycallmedan, etherpunk, jadabug, hdu, votes4minnows, shammi

2 replies

@mattclarke · Apr 24 '19

$0.41

Agreed. I've wanted a return to 50/50 curation (and n2) ever since they changed; but the time, trauma and effort to switch back now just don't justify it. 
We get to 500K active daily users and curation is going to get worthwhile again anyway.

👍 frogcake

@llfarms · Apr 23 '19

Dpoll uses keychain now, just so everyone knows.

@dalz · Apr 23 '19

Voted for 
  - No


The richer getting richer

👍 valued-customer, bidesign, mixr

 sell votes brings the "riches". 95% of there Voting Power back. So i think 50/50 are a good way to fight against vote sellers.

@yaanivapeji · Apr 23 '19

Voted for 
  - Yes


I voted for yes. Let us try 50/50 curation, since it has not been tried before. Who knows it can solve some citation problems were are facing. Like vote buying.

👍 mixr

properties (23)vote details (10)

@senseiteekay · Apr 23 '19

$0.23

Voted for 
  - No


No because the Author does the work on the content. The whole argument of value on Steemit is based about the value of content,so I don't understand why you'd want to give half of the content writers pay to the audience.  think 25% is a fair take for the audience & ensures money circulates back into the ecosystem. Oh, & I don't even post anymore so this doesn't affect me. The only problem that anyone should be worried about here, is how lame Steemit has become. Audiences are bored and so I don't even tell people about this place anymore, it smells of old socks & dungeon-dwelling programmers

👍 theycallmedan, lordbutterfly, jaki01, krnel, lordneroo, edb, valued-customer, bidesign, mixr, senseiteekay

If you want to know what I think I made a video here with open discussion. https://steemit.com/dtube/@theycallmedan/ptb813uc

👍 urme33, alamin33

@krnel · Apr 23 '19 (edited)

$0.23

Yeah... this seems imbalanced to me... 50/50... because clicking a mouse button means you should get more and the author less. Not all authors are the same or put in the same amount of work, but anyways, clicking a mouse button, or autovoting and doing nothing, needs to be kept in mind. If the voter likes the content, great, then they get what they wanted: content. Getting curation rewards is a nice extra when all you need to do is click a mouse button and nothing else, even not look at the content if you don't want to... ;) Just click a button to get some rewards back for that action... I like to look at the work being done, and creating content demands more work than clicking a mouse button.

👍 theycallmedan, jaki01, edb, angryman, valued-customer, senseiteekay

$0.04

Ya I don't disagree with that. I just point out why curate when I can sell my vote? If you want curation to happen at scale then you must incentive curators to upvote others and not incentive self upvoting.  But maybe selling votes and self upvoting being top of the list isn't a bad idea, not saying know. If people are willing to buy votes then there is demand for the eyeballs here.

👍 krnel, urme33

14 replies

@blocktrades · Apr 24 '19

$0.17

It's not 50/50 in that sense: there's one author and tons of curators on popular posts. The author will pretty much always get more rewards, unless its one big curator doing the voting.

👍 theycallmedan, hashbrownhustla

@awesomianist · Apr 24 '19

If a shop lowers the price on their product and ended up with more sales, is that a loss?

> is how lame Steemit has become.

We're talking about Steem the blockchain not Steemit the website. Also, I believe @theycallmedan is doing this exactly because Steem has become "lame". the way things are now does not work and it's high time we explore this proposal that has been talked about for the pass 2-3 years.

No the User make the Work. If you have none read your Stuff is like worthless. Look in google if you are on Site 2. Its worthless. So people help you to share and reward your Voice have more Work. Think about if you real curate, you have to read a Ton of Stuff and Reward the best one.

IF you a a Author you want people to read your Stuff.

@jpphotography · Apr 23 '19

Voted for 
  - Yes

👍 mixr

@mindtrap · Apr 23 '19

Voted for 
  - Yes


Why the heck not. Unless we try we won't find out

👍 mixr

@abbak7 · Apr 23 '19

$0.12

Voted for 
  - Yes

👍 abbak7, mixr

@preparedwombat · Apr 23 '19

Voted for 
  - No


50/50 especially when curation rewards are using square root rather than linear rewards? Might as well just ship bundles of cash directly to whales and skip all the intermediary steps.

👍 valued-customer, bidesign, mixr

@uyobong · Apr 23 '19

Voted for 
  - Yes


I had earlier created [this poll](https://dpoll.xyz/detail/@uyobong/do-you-think-authors-would-really-earn-less-if-5050-curation-was-adopted-on-steem-blockchain/) few days ago, but it did not gain a good engagement probably because I had no rewards for voters.

This is one of the reasons that curation should gain more than its current 25%. Beyond the rewards, curation goes a long way as as an appreciation for one's time, skills put into a post and beyond votes, the resteems and comments add a great flavour.

My argument is simple. With higher curation rewards, we'll have more investors and #steem will grow. Besides, Content creators will have to give attention to quality to attract good curators.

Thanks @Theycallmedan for visiting this again.

Till on my research on this.

👍 mixr

properties (23)vote details (9)

@bryan-imhoff · Apr 23 '19 (edited)

$0.27

Voted for
- No

No, for several reasons. I believe bid bots would be capable of adjusting to the new dynamic. They would gain heavily from increased curation reward and be able to pay that forward to their delegators, making this change minimally effective in incentivizing better curation from higher SP individuals. Rather than improving authentic curating, I think a 50/50 split would instead incentivize more curation trails and schemes to maximize rewards. It would definitely slow the velocity with which Steem is distributing out to more accounts. Those who vote generously now would have to start actually tipping Steem instead of voting if they wanted to continue building minnows or their communities up at the same rate they currently are, which simply over complicates the system. Most importantly, I don’t think the current curation system is showing its true maturity and function yet due to Steem’s low userbase. If a post gets genuinely popular at present, it may get a few hundred organic upvotes. We have yet to see true virality and popularity on Steem. With broader distribution and more activity we’ll see curation truly shine as some folks will be the first to discover & promote content that goes on to millions of upvotes! That kind of curation reward won’t be bought or manufactured like in today’s small ecosystem.

*edit*
I also see a future and application for businesses and brands that purchase stake to reward their fans & customers by upvoting positive posts, reviews, comments, etc. In this scenario those users care more about their voting strength, not their curation kickback. I don’t want my vote based “marketing spend” hobbled by 33%.

👍 theycallmedan, lordbutterfly, krnel, markkujantunen, lordneroo, edb, valued-customer, bidesign, mixr

$0.03

Great input. I want to say that curation rewards for bid bots are terrible,  as they have zero control over when they upvote, it is supply/demand driven. People use bidbots and upvotes after they have upvoted and usually people don't upvote after they see bidbots have upvoted. Point is curation rewards highly favor those who upvote before most others do. 
Also, for low SP holders, the best thing you can do is try to accumulate more SP, so your upvote matters more. Having 50% instead of 25% of curation rewards allocate you the opportunity to earn more curation rewards if you are skilled in timing your upvotes. Meaning, lower SP holders now have more of a chance to increase the SP in their account by effective curating in a 50/50 system. Now, of course, if they self upvotes in this current system, that is the fastest way to get more SP. But I want to make it so curating gives the fastest SP.

👍 bryan-imhoff, urme33

@theycallmedan · Apr 23 '19 (edited)

$0.05

I forgot to say businesses that want to reward their users, the best route is an SMT that they have full control over the split. Steem IMO is for distribution, second layer tokens like SMTs will be for rewarding users of each ap. In DPOS, distribution is very important. There should be two layers, one that distributes and a second layer that provides liquid rewards based off the apps popularity.

👍 bryan-imhoff, markkujantunen, urme33

properties (23)vote details (7)

2 replies

@pjau · Apr 23 '19

$0.12

Voted for 
  - Yes


Would be an interesting experiment at the very least. So I would be open to a trial of some sort.

I'm not sure if it would make much different though. People might start curating others more, but would they actually engage in the content, will they even look at it, or will it still just be mostly on auto pilot? It might even make people automate voting even more.

It would make it fairer for those who do curate though, not everyone likes to post a lot.

👍 mrkebab, mixr
👎 flags4pedos, brandnewaccount, shit-posts, dumb-as-an-ox, scruffyjunkies

@j85063 · Apr 23 '19

I vote no as we need people to continue making posts. No posts no steem Blockchain doing anything and nothing to vote on.

Posted using [Partiko Android](https://partiko.app/referral/j85063)

👍 mixr

@chesatochi · Apr 23 '19

Voted for 
  - No


The wealthy curators or big fishes will make more money without doing anything on curation trails. Imagine making 25% more money with a tool like SteemAuto.

Then you collect the money once a month while you are at the beach. ;)

Steem Power is like an axe on the reward pool, the more you have it, the more you make money!

👍 valued-customer, bidesign, mixr

@holybranches · Apr 23 '19

Voted for 
  - Yes

👍 mixr

$0.03

Voted for 
  - Yes

👍 milky-concrete, awesomianist, johnhtims, mixr

@rishi556 · Apr 23 '19

$0.03

Voted for 
  - No


Voting no because authors still need to get something. I'm a lot more of a curator than an author, even running @hoist to help new and (subjectively)good authors. But making sure that new users see some rewards for posting is important to keeping them so 75/25 is a good split. Now that 15 min cooldown period for voting for a post I think we should remove.

👍 sbi5, bidesign, mixr

@hitmeasap · Apr 23 '19

I have been against this for the longest time, but @theycallmedan has sort of convinced me that 50/50 would be something we could benefit from... I still remain skeptical to say the least.

However, I understand the idea behind the suggestion, but it comes from the already wealthy people, which is a big, fat red flag to me. Nothing against theycallmedan though, I know he does great things for the little people and I know his intentions are good. But, there are a bunch of passive people around who does nothing but circle-jerk, sell votes and remain passive...

I don't want to make the rich even richer, especially not at the expense of content creators. This place already stinks of greed and selfishness, so I don't want to add anything more to it.

I wouldn't mind some sort of "trial period" though. 2 weeks of 50/50 to see how it would work. I've never seen any reversed changes since I joined in July 2016 though, so I doubt we would see a reverse, no matter the outcome.

STEEM has literally pushed people into passiveness from the beginning, especially after delegations arrived and vote selling became a thing...

👍 mixr

Raising curation rewards makes everyone who curates the fastest and finds the most popular content richer. Does not matter how big your stake is, if you upvote before me, you actually want a big stake  holder to come and upvote after you.

👍 urme33

@hitmeasap · Apr 23 '19

That is true, but wouldn't these passive investors just use steemauto or something similar to cast their votes? I mean, circle-jerk was here when I arrived in 2016. The bigger accounts voted for other big accounts and they literally ate the entire pie themselves. 

With steem auto, they could just vote for the authors who're known to produce content regularly to not miss out on a vote. Set it to upvote at 14 minutes or whatever and leave it. If you look at the trending pages right now, the same authors are sitting there 24/7. Pick those authors and earn **tons** of curation rewards, as they will buy votes from bid bots **after** you vote.

Hence, the rich gets richer.

---

Here's a comment from @bashadow:
> *"Most post votes are done by so called curators between 13 and 17 minutes of a post. That is not curation-that is looking to make a buck off of someone else's work - and I am fine with that being as it is an automated system."*

> *"If it should be decided to go with a 50/50 split because of curation efforts then the start time of the curation payout should be **randomized**. That will show me they really are concerned about the curation effort and not about the bottom dollar. A randomized start time of curation payout would mean simply that just because you voted for a post during the sweet spot (13-17 mins), does not guarantee you a better curation reward than someone who voted for the post on day 3 hour 17 minute 23."*

Having a randomized curation timer seems like a pretty cool idea to me. What do you think about it? Would obviously not benefit vote sellers or curators. Active of passive, as it would rely more on chance.

@southernwolf · Apr 27 '19

Why not allow authors to choose their own curation reward percentage on a post using a slider? That way it's up to the individual author to decide how much of the reward goes to curators and how much goes to them.

@abitcoinskeptic · Apr 23 '19

$0.54

Voted for 
  - Yes


Maybe add a slider for between 25% and 75% for a trial period until finalizing on the exact amount.

👍 spectrumecons, theycallmedan, freddio, mixr

@theycallmedan · Apr 24 '19

I like this idea

👍 urme33, alamin33

@abitcoinskeptic · Apr 24 '19

My thought is it will give time for curation groups and bot owners to figure it out and for others against it to come around or at least see the effects.
My hope is people will find themselves forced to set it high as bot owners, large voters and curation groups won't interact with people who arent setting it higher.
As for the people saying curation is not linear, I am not sure about the details, but it seems trade off there is also possible. For example the higher the curation on the post the more linear rewards become. Also, curation should be linked to the size of the vote and not post pay out, or no one will curate people outside their circle.

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

The Slider Idea is really good.

@abitcoinskeptic · Apr 24 '19

The only people against the slider would be people who realize raising curation would actually work but find the current system to be in their advantage. I actually suspect that within a couple of weeks no one will be getting unpaid votes unless it's set at 50-50 and it will even take on the curation bots as people realize curating is more profitable than just delegating which is the current problem in my opinion.

@spectrumecons · Apr 25 '19

That sounds like an interesting experiment. It would make it difficult for the bots to calculate an ROI if posts have different curation rewards. I am guessing many of the hardcore vote buyers will keep curation rewards low to get a higher ROI on vote buying. I like the idea of offering as high as 75% curation rewards. As I don't buy votes, I will most likely be offering higher than 50% to my curators.

@abitcoinskeptic · Apr 25 '19

Well if it was like beneficiaries you could change with every post.

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

@mytechtrail · Apr 23 '19

Voted for 
  - Yes


We need more readers and increasing curation hopefully brings more users who enjoy reading posts and hopefully create more engagement which benefits us all.

👍 mixr

@numpypython · Apr 23 '19

Interesting question. I don't think it'll solve the problem of helping good content rise though. 50/50 will be good for whales but for the rest of steemit, i'm not so sure.

👍 mixr

@johnhtims · Apr 23 '19

Voted for 
  - Yes


YES.  I vote yes but I give the chance of it ever happening at only 1%.

👍 mixr

@blatenaw · Apr 23 '19

Absolutely No!!! Because when curators invested in content, always the Author will receive 1/3 of the total amounts of invested curators

👍 mixr

@theycallmedan · Apr 23 '19 (edited)

The author would get 50% and the curators would share the other 50%, every time. The more curators upvoting the more the author makes. The curator can't ever make more then the author does on a post; a curator can't even make equal to the author because the curator shares with other curators, the author shares none of the 50%.

👍 urme33, alamin33

if no one vote for you, you get nothing. If curators get 50/50 they will vote more often.

Dont forget, the Curator has to invest in Steem before ( Time or Money)

@charcoalbuffet · Apr 23 '19 (edited)

Voted for 
  - No

I think it'll have unintended consequences resulting in the stratification of the steem economy. Could be wrong though.

👍 mixr

properties (23)vote details (18)

@themarkymark · Apr 23 '19 (edited)

$8.67

Voted for 
  - Yes

I don’t think this alone is the solution or if 50% is the right number but what we have now doesn’t work and the gap between curating, delegating to a bot, and self voting is huge. 

I believe it needs to come with changes to flags as well to encourage **quality** negative curation.

👍 magicdice, michealb, geekgirl, therealwolf, thebluewin, themonetaryfew, upboater, awesomianist, sirvotesalot, hooiyewlim, atempt, ascorphat, mixr, msowner2, stimialiti, southernwolf, igster
👎 realcleaner

100% this.

👍 urme33, alamin33

@magicdice · Apr 24 '19

re-themarkymark-0efd1d02-07c7-46d9-8c31-1b99f0421f99-20190424t130115118z

<p><strong>Magic Dice</strong> has rewarded your post with a <strong>100%</strong> upvote. Thanks for playing <a href="https://magic-dice.com/">Magic Dice</a>.</p>

@miti · Apr 26 '19

I Fully agree with you.

$0.12

What we will see is that substantial stakeholders will vote for this, because it will allow them to extract greater rent from their stakes.  

Eliminating profiteering is a far more productive course that may draw in investors to promote development of Steem and create upwards price pressure and effect capital gains.  Making it more profitable to extract rewards by voting only decreases actual incentive to reward content on the basis of it's quality.  

We don't see proposals for improving curation at all, because we don't have investors at all.  We have profiteers.  This is no way to run a railroad - or any other investment vehicle.  Warren Buffet is sad.

👍 jaki01

@themarkymark · Apr 27 '19

The main point of this is to close the gap between organic voting and self voting and make it more appealing to most people to vote with your heart instead of the most profitable.

👍 upboater, sirvotesalot
👎 realcleaner

1 reply

@masterthematrix · Apr 27 '19

No, we should not introduce a Voting Slider or change the curation percentage, because this is not the fundamental problem with Steemit.
We need to acknowledge that the Proof of Brain mechanism of Steemit doesn't fit to the overall Dapp ecosystem of the Steem Blockchain. Instead of thinking how we can improve the Author / Curation system we should think about how we can change the rules of the reward pool distribution for the whole Steem Ecosystem. My proposal would be to get rid of Steemit exclusive right to mine Steem Tokens. Steemit should become its own SMT project so that the Reward Pool is free of this entanglement. Than we can develop the Reward Pool towards an DAPP Ecosystem which should put Steempower Holders, RC Holders and Voting rights for Witnesses in the center of the Ecosystem.
Why should we mine Steem by only posting and Blogging on Steemit when the whole Ecosystem is changing towards Dapp Economy??? Please, guys lets take this serious there is no need for changing just the Curation Author reward system we need complete change of the Reward Pool Structure!

@igster · Apr 29 '19 (edited)

I also 100% agree on this. Can we have witnesses vote about this issue to see where we stand and could we implement the change as a community if there's a clear majority supporting the change?

I guess since someone has to do the work, proposal system would be needed to make this change happen through community? We don't need Steemit Inc's approval for this, right?

@phoenixwren · Apr 23 '19

Voted for 
  - No

👍 mixr

@nonsowrites · Apr 23 '19

Voted for 
  - No


How about 60:40
50:50 seems extreme. Yeah, I understand the current reward ratio has loopholes but I'm sure the 50:50 ratio can be exploited as well. I don't think altering the reward ratio will have a significant effect on the voting habits of most steemians. Maybe some sort of debate regarding this can should be done so people can have a more balanced view and then decide.

👍 littlenewthings, bidesign, mixr

@maxdevalue · Apr 23 '19

50 50 is not bad considering the reason behind is. I say yes to that suggestion.

Posted using [Partiko iOS](https://partiko.app/referral/maxdevalue)

👍 mixr

@stackin · Apr 24 '19

It seems to me a lot of bot owners are “eyeing” this 😂😂😂

Posted using [Partiko iOS](https://partiko.app/referral/stackin)

👍 amico, valued-customer, mixr, bidesign

properties (23)vote details (8)

@bitrocker2020 · Apr 24 '19

$0.02

lol ... i believe so !

👍 jinygoh, dustbunny, tehtarik, elizacheng, spotadapp, votes4minnows, icomillionaire, steemtaker

@bidesign · Apr 24 '19

👍👏👏

Posted using [Partiko iOS](https://partiko.app/referral/bidesign)

👍 blockking

@marki99 · Apr 24 '19

Voted for 
  - Yes


Steemit Inc shouldn't do this task. Some community dev or witness.

👍 mixr

@farizal · Apr 24 '19

Voted for 
  - Yes


50-50 is always a good deal.

👍 mixr

@funtraveller · Apr 24 '19

Voted for 
  - Yes


Let's make curation great!

👍 mixr

@cryptoandcoffee · Apr 24 '19

Voted for 
  - Yes


I think it would be worth a try anyway as the current curation is not great. I think more people will take it more seriously and it may stop users selling their votes. I would be happy to see this implemented as it gives more users the chance to grow a little quicker.

👍 mixr

@pouchon · Apr 24 '19

Voted for 
  - No

👍 bidesign, mixr

@nextgen622 · Apr 24 '19

Voted for 
  - Yes

👍 mixr

@alokkumar121 · Apr 24 '19

$0.02

Voted for 
  - No


Current system is fine. Making a change in it will reduce author reward.

👍 dustsweeper, bidesign, mixr

or more people will vote and the votes increase. Guys that only sell there vote

@olivia08 · Apr 24 '19

Voted for 
  - Yes


Dear @theycallmedan,
I love the 50/50 curation basis leaving the Steemians to decide their 50% for their own option. Anyway, for me l always wanted to power up,I'm just giving way for the necessity of others, like they need money for example for emergency needs.
Thank you for this. Salute you!

👍 mixr

@olivia08 · Apr 24 '19

Voted and I like it. Thank you so much. I voted yes, though l like most of my time in power up my earnings. I voted yes for the necessity of other Steemians who need money on time.

Posted using [Partiko Android](https://partiko.app/referral/olivia08)

👍 mixr

@michealb · Apr 24 '19

Voted for 
  - Yes


Yes,

👍 mixr

@guruvaj · Apr 24 '19

Voted for 
  - No

👍 mixr

@vdux · Apr 24 '19

Voted for 
  - No


Upping curation benefits bots and cliques.

👍 bidesign, mixr

@yabapmatt · Apr 24 '19

Voted for 
  - No

👍 mixr

@awesomianist · Apr 24 '19

Voted for 
  - Yes


This is a no brainer. There is no "loss" to the content creator when 50/50 curation rewards incentives more curation and upvoting by Steem stakeholders.

👍 mixr

@famigliacurione · Apr 24 '19

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.

👍 mixr

@awesome.ian · Apr 24 '19

Voted for 
  - Yes


If getting twice the reward for voting good content gets people to vote, then yes..

Otherwise people are just shitposting posts to farm votes with the 75% rewards.

👍 mixr

properties (23)vote details (9)

@bitrocker2020 · Apr 24 '19

$0.02

Voted for 
  - Yes


I believe that when we start bringing in the masses with a large portion of it is influenced by businesses they need to be able to sustain and know that STEEM blockchain is not a "charitable" organization however its a platform where they can leverage by earning by their own investments staked into the blockchain and also be able to reward their user base. 

Even conventional reward programs gives less then 5% of reward points based on the amount spent by their users and users will still try to find the best way to earn more points. 

getting the curation to 50/50 is just the first step however with SMT about to be launched (taboo), that variable should be able to be determined by the founder of that token.

👍 jinygoh, dustbunny, tehtarik, elizacheng, spotadapp, mixr, votes4minnows, icomillionaire, steemtaker

@geekgirl · Apr 24 '19

Voted for 
  - Yes

👍 jadabug, hdu, mixr, votes4minnows, shammi

@littlenewthings · Apr 24 '19 (edited)

I personally feel it is yes for curators but no for content providers.

At this point of time there are still a lot of junk posts out there that is manipulative with self upvotes.

I agree with [@themarkymark](https://steemit.com/@themarkymark) that this shouldn't be the only solution.

If truly that there is a 50-50 rewards then it has to be more creteria to it to encourage content creators to keep creating.

I also like the slider feature suggestion where creators are allowed to choose to set his / her post like a bounty for exposure (providing that the post offers 50% curation rewards) purposes so that curators are enticed to come and read the post or just support it.

👍 mixr

@creativetruth · Apr 24 '19

A slider for payout would be awesome!

I remember authors who used to offer 90% to 100% return to all the curators who upvoted their post. They got lots of comments and reshares, which is the exposure they wanted. And it gave people with smaller accounts a larger reward than they normally get for supporting their work. All around a win-win, and it wasn't forced onto the entire blockchain. Totally optional.

@joythewanderer · Apr 24 '19

Voted for 
  - Yes

👍 mixr

@newageinv · Apr 24 '19

Voted for 
  - Yes


The better question is why not try something different.  The definition of insanity is repeating the same behavior and expecting different results.  Let’s try something different as we may have much to lose!

👍 mixr

@happyphoenix · Apr 24 '19

$0.02

Voted for 
  - No

👍 dustsweeper, bidesign, mixr

@jassennessaj · Apr 24 '19

Hi @theycallmedan. I hope so too it can be raised to encourage more curators on this platform. I should say around 60 - 40 is a better choice. 40% goes to curators :)

👍 mixr

@jassennessaj · Apr 24 '19

Voted for 
  - Yes


I voted for this option though I am really okay with the 60 - 40 rewards share.

👍 mixr

@abdt · Apr 24 '19

Voted for 
  - Yes

👍 mixr

@ausbitbank · Apr 24 '19

Voted for 
  - Yes

👍 cuddlekitten, mixr

@reazuliqbal · Apr 24 '19 (edited)

$0.03

Voted for 
  - No

I do not think 50/50 would encourage manual curation or reduce usage of bid bots. Using 50/50 doesn't mean every voters (if any) will get 50% of their vote value back rather the curation bots that vote at optimal time will get a lot back from their investment.

To my knowledge all current bid-bots take 25% curation split into account in calculating ROI, they might as well take 50% into account by changing 2-3 lines of codes. Some share curation rewards with the delegators now, so they will have no problem sharing then.

Lastly and most important to me, I want bigger rewards for the creators, they put time and efforts into creating contents, so they should receive more, not a person with huge stake or a bot that votes indiscriminately.

👍 dustsweeper, edb, valued-customer, bidesign, mixr

@sorin.cristescu · Apr 24 '19

$0.11

Voted for 
  - No


If we were to raise the curation rewards to 50% it is hard to predict the outcome - it should diminish the incentives to write articles (hence the number of articles) and thus the overall activity of the blockchain. For investors and advertisers less activity means less value. On the positive, those who do keep writing will do so more because they have something to say than because of the money. At the margin though, I expect to see more people leaving the platform because the rewards will be even smaller than today.
But I admit these are speculative thoughts, it's hard to predict how the community will react. My main problem though is that it doesn't feel right. The effort is not the same in writing an article and in upvoting it. How do you justify rewarding the same two activities which require such vastly different effort ?

👍 jaki01, freddio, sorin.cristescu, bidesign, mixr

@freddio · Apr 24 '19 (edited)

Hey,

I think 50%/50% are fair. Because to curate is a hart job. If you read a ton of article and Reward the best ones, its hart work. 
Like 100 cooking recipes. A user want only to read the best but if you curate them, thats a ton of work. 
In my opinion is curating more work then writing ( depens on article for sure). 

The next point is, you need to spend Money ( buy Steem) to get higher votes. So why i should spend money as a Voter?

I would Favour 75% curator 25% Author ( or maybe a Slider).  

Reason 1: Make Vote selling less profitable.
Reason 2: Because of the work to curate all this Stuff
Reason 3: Curator need to power up for huge votes, so there Trust the Steem Blockchain for longer Term.
Reason 4: The decision is more easy to upvote as a Investor, if there is no more profitable way. 

I think Authors get more Rewards. Because Vote Sellers maybe think " hey i can reward the Content i really like and i dont lost some Steem ROI".

We should work on a System that is not so easy to game. Or Stop the Voting System and make a Subscription System out of it. 

I think Authors should get a aditional Author Coin too, maybe a SMT.

@manoldonchev · Apr 24 '19

Voted for 
  - Yes

👍 mixr

@niel96 · Apr 24 '19

Voted for 
  - No

👍 bidesign, mixr

@manoldonchev · Apr 24 '19

As an experiment to try and give incentive for manual curation vs bot usage, I'd say yes. Assuming your logic is correct. On the other hand, there will be those authors whose efforts might become even more undervalued. That's what we fear, I guess. As well as finding out that some new unhealthy practice takes hold on the pool. How do new authors get to their feet?

👍 mixr

@sorin.lite · Apr 24 '19

$0.04

Voted for 
  - No


Voting "no" with my second account in order to draw attention to something else: curation rewards are a red herring. We are wasting effort on a topic which is strategically secondary. 

By contrast, one of the BIG, hugely important topics in the steem eco-system is that of personal accountability. If participants felt responsibility about the way they act on the platform, we'd be having a lot less problems and would be seeing a lot less abuse. 

Yet personal responsibility is tightly linked to identity. For as long as people can act here anonymously and under the cloak of as many anonymous accounts as they want, we are going to see on display our lowest, most despicable instincts.

👍 jaki01, mixr, sorin.cristescu

@harvhat · Apr 24 '19

Voted for 
  - No

👍 mixr

@cryptoewp · Apr 24 '19

Actually This is one of the true discussions for Steem Blockchain Future. But everyone in Steemit folk has some concerns about Steem economy. First of all i think that Steem Economy is the best economy among traditional and Blockchain economies. But it has some negative sides.

First time when i opened steemit account i thought bid bod system is what a shit system. But later i noticed that it consist a big part of steem economy because of people have encourged by this system for produce and share something on this platform. But you right that at the same time this system enables to low quality content.

Well why people prefer to use bidbods? Because when someone try to produce something, can not instantly get support by community member or curators. Because you have to consist a network via many communication tools such as discord, steem.chat or others. But the most people generally just write something or produce something with their knowledge because of this is their passion and they can not access with another people or curators on steemit.So they feel it not important for community or platform. There is main problem about that i think we have not enough curators. So every curator can not track and find out each post every time.

Second think i disagree downvote system. Because if you scare to people for create right order, then many people escape out and don't come new people for that. You can not do something with fear. Just try with beatiful things.

Finally I think the best important thing is the economy growth has to spreading into public. As you know traditional economies have main problem like that. If steem economy will not spread towards general public, then we will face a lot of economic or price problem.

But this discussion is vers possitive for future.

Thanks.

👍 jadabug, mixr, penghuren

@cryptoewp · Apr 24 '19

In addition i want to say one more thing. Social-economy is tell us about people behavior. And if we can not understand why people acting like this, then we can miss big problem. In fact if you wanna solve really this problem first of all you must solve public's behavior. Then we can reach to successful system.

👍 jadabug, penghuren, elviento

Voted for 
  - Yes

👍 mixr

@acidyo · Apr 24 '19

Voted for 
  - Yes

👍 mixr

@akomoajong · Apr 24 '19

Voted for 
  - No


50/50 is too extreme!

Maybe 60/40. With 50/50, I'm sure to have many curation bots as well as quit blogging on Steem. I will become a full time curator who will only look out for content with potentials of huge curation rewards and not really about its quality.

I think the main idea should be promoting reading and engagement. 50/50 will not solve this.

Also, I see the reward poll shifting more towards the whales and high earners on Steem and these set of Steemians will be targets of curation bots.

👍 mixr

@wakeupkitty · Apr 24 '19

Voted for 
  - No

👍 mixr

@creativetruth · Apr 24 '19

Voted for 
  - No


I like things the way they are.

Yes, there are people who still post and curate others honestly without bots. They deserve their 75% of the rewards. If they upvote themselves, that is their right. They earned it. It's their money! They cannot hide what they are doing. It's right there for everyone to see if their actions look suspicious or not.

Why would I want to pay half of my earnings to a group of people I do not get to select every time they choose my post? Many of them are just trying to cash in a fraction from a big fish who gets paid for my work. I would rather them leave me alone, and I can make a more honest income for work that is actually good and respected by like-minded people who appreciate each other. Yes, it is possible to be even more successful through hard work and quality talents. We do not have to resort to letting the biggest players control the majority of all rewards.

👍 mixr

@revisesociology · Apr 24 '19

Voted for 
  - Yes


I earn more than most users through posting, but even for me a 50-50 split wouldn't reduce my earnings by that much. 

The big plus is that this should encourage more curation and looking around for good content and diverse voting among most users. 

It would need some careful marketing about authors being dependent on their curators, because I do accept the comments that say '50-50' doesn't feel right, if flippantly talked about it comes across as 'chucking half your rewards away', but it's not that simple of course! 

I'm not sure 50-50 would break up the early adopter shit-posting circle jerks though? 

I'm in the @kevinwong club for how to change steem - this is one pillar, a few other tweaks need to be changed! 

I'm also very much in agreement with those people saying we need to try something different - so this is defo worth trying. 

I'm also thinking 60-40 might be better!

👍 mixr

@hooiyewlim · Apr 24 '19

not everyone can earn like you at steemit. some of us got cost to cover when creating content . The only way to fix it and change of culture .  If the steemian here don't change how they vote or willingly give vote. Than expect all the content creator to leave.

This is the very reason i remain at youtube.

@thebluewin · Apr 24 '19

$0.19

Voted for 
  - Yes

👍 sbi2, ezravandi, mixr

@anouk.nox · Apr 24 '19

I didn't vote the poll, as I don't have my keys near me atm, but I vote for **no** with the info I have at this moment.

I wonder how it works when authors use a dapp to publish. Let's take my latest article as an example, and I hope you can explain to me what it will do to my percentage of the reward:

![](https://cdn.steemitimages.com/DQmQCePL9AjjukGs6EGwJu3w7yHDAWbh31aKsvPqS4QmK5a/image.png)

This article was published through the @oracle-d portal, which makes them beneficiaries, which is totally fine by me. I publish via them, as I write the articles for their tasks, and they support me. I have no issue with them taking a bigger part of my earnings in this case. Without their support, my earnings on these articles would be a lot lower than they are now. 

In this case, 48.75% is left for  me (the author) as a reward. And the curators take 24.14%, while the beneficiaries (oracle-d) takes 26.25% ...

Whenever the curation rewards (as a standard) for the author will be lowered to 50%, what does this mean for the the percentages mentioned above? Personally, I would not feel comfortable putting all the effort in writing these articles, and earning even less than 50%. 

I hope you can explain this to me, as my answer is based on the info I have at the moment, and to be honest, I have no clue what this will do to rewards for articles where there are already beneficiaries involved as well. 

Thanks in advance :)

👍 mixr

@cryptofiloz · Apr 24 '19

Voted for 
  - Yes


Maybe 60/40 would be ideal.. ;)

👍 mixr

properties (23)vote details (10)

@kevinwong · Apr 24 '19 (edited)

$1.64

Voted for
- Yes

My vote is yes to 50/50 as a good first step, but just to clarify on my position, check out the end of this comment at the "extra" as I just want to focus on the 50/50 item atm.

**Concern: 50/50 is too heavy. 40/60 might be better. Curators are taking too much of a cut while doing much less than authors. Better to focus on more apps and biz. There will be a different maximization game with the change.**

### Response:

Firstly, think of a hypothetical Steem economy with 100% author rewards and 0% curation rewards, 100/0. Voters will most likely just upvote themselves all the time. Broadly speaking, 100/0 is in effect, the economic equivalent of 0% author rewards and 100% curation rewards, 0/100, as voters just end up getting all the rewards voting anywhere. Nothing left for authors either way for any decent content. Looking at this symmetry, it stands to reason that 25/75 today is in effect like 75/25, and 40/60 is like 60/40. So 50/50 is in effect, just the same at 50/50. In fact I'd expect anything besides a close approximation of the 50/50 effect would end up collapsing into somewhere near the 0/100 or 100/0 region, after a long period of time. Again, just broadly speaking though. Not really debating 60/40 or 40/60 is better than 50/50, as long as it achieves the 50/50 effect in the end for every vote given out to something decent.

Secondly, authors effectively get their rewards from curators, and authors are also curators themselves. It's a social ~~network~~ blockchain. Personally, I don't really get the dichotomy here even though there are obviously users that only create or curate. Saying no to improved curation reward is almost like telling our sponsors they shouldn't get the best and most sensible returns possible from supporting our work.

Thirdly, imagine a channel where the best curators hang out while onboarding / promoting great content creators. Let's say Pewdiepie or whoever else you're already digging on Steem or anywhere else. With the right incentives, we'd be happily voting on content that we're already consuming everyday and even take the time to promote upcoming great content creators. Sure, the many different apps that developers build are important, but I can't think of a better business for *everyone* other than going the route of trying to improve Steem's economy via its rewards or POB protocol, something which no user interface or application can ever do. More biz and apps are good but they're not necessarily Steem's topmost differentiating factor in crypto. There are plenty of high performance blockchains for biz and stuff. It's better to get Steem's economy around the right ballpark with the community we have, build it, and then the best of apps and biz will thrive along the way.

Extra:

I hope the other [2 items](https://steemit.com/steem/@kevinwong/understanding-steem-s-economic-flaw-its-effects-on-the-network-and-how-to-fix-it) would get considered sometime in the near future to seal all the conceivable leaks in the boat the best we can. It also adheres to a better blockchain philosophy in my opinion, if considering notions of quality & quantity & incentives. Everything we encourage shoving into the chain is a cost someone has to bear in the future, etc. Sure we can and should have loads of activities coming from a social blockchain perspective, but incentives are another matter and not necessarily and straightforwardly all kinds of activities == incentives. We shouldn't get mixed up between these arguments. Minimize costs and maximize benefits. Cliche, but it's paramount to any blockchain design, moreso than anything that revolves around traditional databases if we're considering a very very long-term game.

Maximizing rewards through whatever means, even the most lazy via curation trail is perfectly fine. There just needs to be checks and balances in the economy (as proposed in the link above) so it can at least benefit Steem as a whole over time. Even the most hardworking people will be lazy at some point, or lazy in certain dimensions. Or whatever, lazy is not really the point. We just need to design a environment or economy where lazy produces something good, like a working content discovery and rewards platform. Imagine if lazy autovoters are voting on crap stuff. Some "bribe" and deterrence from the change to 50/50, superlinear rewards, and downvote pool will likely change behavior or the "path of least resistance" to point to the good stuff that actually helps the platform.

Of course, a working economy means a positive feedback loop on the network, and that would necessitate improvement in part of reward beneficiaries as time goes on. It's the other way around at the moment, imo.

👍 therealwolf, kevinwong, joythewanderer, arcange, themonetaryfew, bboyady, valued-customer, raphaelle, ascorphat, mixr

$0.21

I appreciate your substantive and informed comment, even though I strongly disagree.

>"Voters will most likely just upvote themselves all the time."

It's been tried, and through socks it happens alla time.  Remember @mindhunter though?  He's just gone after his ploy was revealed.  The community disapproves of self voting, and for good reason.  Why have rewards at all?  To create incentive to produce quality content that markets Steem and potentiates capital gains for stakeholders.  While curation rewards were instituted to further create incentive to do that, they don't amount to much for insubstantial stakeholders, who in general just ignore them as a reason to upvote.  

Curation rewards thus aren't any incentive for the majority of votes.  For those with substantial stake, curation rewards are the end - not curation.  Votes cast to attain curation rewards by those folks are cast without regard to content quality at all - contrary to the purpose of curation rewards - but solely and strategically to gain rewards.

Until vote bots arose self votes and similar mechanisms were roundly criticized as simple profiteering (and that censure has now included votebots), that at best did not create incentive to come here and buy some Steem and drive the price up.  That's a good reason.  So, let's admit that curation rewards don't work for the purpose they were instituted to achieve, and go on.  @edicted proposed giving authors a slider, so they could set curation rewards to whatever they wanted, and despite my initial advocacy for eliminating curation rewards completely (as simply another vector for extracting rent with stake) I agree this is a better solution, as it becomes a means of attracting votes by letting voters attain to the rewards themselves - eliminating bidbots and enabling authors to promote their posts by eschewing rewards to the degree they are willing to.

As my goal for Steem is nothing short of world dominance, I want to see investors acting to create capital gains, and float every boat.  Profiteering is contrary to that, despite lolbertarian freedom to do what one wants with one's stake.  It isn't wise to drain the blood from a barnyard animal you'd like to sell at market for a good price, and that is analogous to profiteering and extracting rewards from the platform when you'd like to see Steem generate capital gains.  Plus, it's gross, and the community does seem to dislike it.

Instead let's consider mechanisms that allow substantial stakeholders to get dividends by delegating to development projects that potentiate capital gains.  Let's also *limit* potential rewards on posts, to eliminate that vector as suitable for profiteering.  Huey Long proposed that no one should live on less than 3% of median income, nor attain to more than 300%, and I reckon that's not going to impact actual content quality negatively, as that's a significant range that allows incentive to be exerted, while also making bidbots useless for folks that abuse them just for rewards.  Now, Long proposed that when he was very popular and no little ferment was ongoing in the US, and got assassinated for his trouble.  I'd prefer not to get shot.  

The rewards pool has been gamed to the point that Steem is suffering from poor enough optics that we underperform the market.  Tweaking curation rewards isn't going to fix the problem of profiteering, as you acknowledge, and simply eliminating curation rewards won't either.  Creating a vector for dividends from delegating to development projects, and limiting the extractive potential of votebots does make it possible to decrease financial incentive to abuse curation for profiteering, and enabling dividends from delegation presents a mechanism that will drive capital gains.  Maximizing rewards *at any cost* isn't wise.  You point this out:

>"...not necessarily and straightforwardly all kinds of activities == incentives."

Maximizing rewards for improving development and driving capital gains is what actual investors should want.  It sure is what the market wants to see, as well as most everyone on Steem today.  If you got this far through my extemporaneous comment, I am grateful.

Thanks!

👍 kevinwong, jaki01

@kevinwong · Apr 28 '19

50/50 alone isnt that effective, from my pov the fix would need other measures as per linked in my comment above. It should be thought of as a chord to play and wouldnt sound as nice if we just play one note. If curation rewards aren’t important, then 100% author rewards would just cause more to self-vote and is the equivalent of 100% curation rewards as I’ve demonstrated above. I’ll just copy and paste trafalgar’s comment on it:-

> There is a dirty little secret about curation %, it can be circumvented via a secondary market. So in theory people are free to kick back curation rewards (which some bid bots do) and author rewards and reach their own %.

> In practice, with a certain level of free downvotes, the official curation % will likely prevail in that it'll determine economic behavior.

> The idea behind all of this is to leave as much behind for the author as possible while using a combination of bribes and deterrence to get the stakeholders to actually vote on what they like rather than take their own vote rewards (either directly or through selling them). Curation, free downvotes and superlinear are just bribes and deterrences that are necessary, but we want as little of it as what's minimally sufficient, as they all have downsides/costs.

> Superlinear makes it more difficult to place an exact value on a vote per SP as it's value is dependent on the future popularity of a post. This makes it more difficult to just vote on something that's shit, as you'll likely get more from curation if you vote on something that'll become more popular. More importantly, it also forces all profitable behavior into the light. You can't spam 5c micro votes across thousands of accounts using a bot and avoid detection. Well you can, but due to superlinear, you're doing it at a loss, because 50% of something popular is more profitable than 100%% (as here you're both curator and author) of something thats garbage.

👍 valued-customer

@shortsegments · May 2 '19 (edited)

$0.05

Hi
I know you have proposed changing the author/curator split before, as the first step in changing the economical model here on Steemit. I think you have the knowledge and/or connections to people who could execute my proposed solution to this problem, so I hope you don’t mind me sharing it with you here.

I think solution to this issue, at least a theoretic one, can be accomplished by using partially existing infrastructure and rules, and also taking advantage of an existing capability in Steemit code, which would allow people to choose to change this split themselves.

After I read this post, I studied some of the existing graphic interfaces and I found that some of the existing sharing features on Steem-plus and some other graphic user interfaces on other platforms allow people to change the sharing of rewards on their specific posts to 50/50 percentage of the authors rewards with a single named beneficiary.
Since the number of beneficiaries and the way the term beneficiaries is defined is written into the code underlying the graphic user interface, it is in theory possible to redefine beneficiary in other terms, such as beneficiary equals user who comments on my post or beneficiary equals user who upvotes my post. After that the code would define the math formula or algorithm which determines the amount paid to this newly defined “beneficiary”. Most developers would use the existing code found in the Git Hub library for this algorithm and not rewrite that portion of the code.
I would suggest incentivizing a developer with JavaScript JS experience to write a code modifying one of these interfaces.
In fact, it would be interesting to find out if a developer has already worked on some code to achieve this goal, i.e. a way to change the author/curator split and the code is stored on someone’s Github site.
The final pice of such a code would connect to Steemconnect similarly as we do now when defining interactions between our Posting authority and the Steem Blockchain and especiallywhen defining interactions between our wallet and the Steem Blockchain.

I think that in theory this could be done, and it would not require special permissions from Steemit, inc, as it requires only user granted permissions to change the split for an individual user.

I hope I have summarized the problem correctly and explained my proposal clearly. If not please contact me.
@shortsegments

👍 etherpunk

@bobskibob · Apr 24 '19

Voted for 
  - Yes

👍 mixr

@jk6276 · Apr 24 '19

Voted for 
  - Yes


I am yet to be convinced that 50/50 will boost manual curation over bots and auto votes, but it is worth a try.

👍 mixr

@bluerobo · Apr 24 '19

Voted for 
  - No


I am not sure about this one since I have changed my opinion on this in the past and still don't have conviction.
My vote goes for "No" because the current reward system is motivating for creators.
A 50% cut for manual curators would still be insignificant.
My SP is around 550 at the moment and I only curate manually. The rewards from this are negligible. I curate because I like it, not for the rewards. 
Cutting creator rewards on the other hand might put a dent in my posting.
This doesn't look like a good value proposition to me at the moment.

👍 mixr

@dpoll.curation · Apr 24 '19

Thanks for contributing to the dPoll content.

You have been upvoted from our community curation account (@dpoll.curation) in courtesy of This Guy... @bluerobo.

Come, join our community at [dPoll discord server](https://discord.gg/ZcV8SGr).
***
<sup>If you want to support dPoll curation, you can also delegate some steem power. Quick steem connect links to delegate: 
[50SP](https://steemconnect.com/sign/delegateVestingShares?delegatee=dpoll.curation&vesting_shares=50%20SP) | [100SP](https://steemconnect.com/sign/delegateVestingShares?delegatee=dpoll.curation&vesting_shares=100%20SP) | [250SP](https://steemconnect.com/sign/delegateVestingShares?delegatee=dpoll.curation&vesting_shares=250%20SP) | [500SP](https://steemconnect.com/sign/delegateVestingShares?delegatee=dpoll.curation&vesting_shares=500%20SP)  
</sup>

👍 mixr

@lordbutterfly · Apr 24 '19

Voted for 
  - No

👍 mixr

@fedesox · Apr 24 '19

Voted for 
  - Yes

👍 mixr

@immanuel94 · Apr 24 '19

Voted for 
  - Yes

👍 mixr

@deathcross · Apr 24 '19

Voted for 
  - Yes


Maybe it is worth a try because the actual system isn't very good. People need more incentives to make real curating.

👍 mixr

@therealwolf · Apr 24 '19

Voted for 
  - Yes

👍 mixr

@vibesforlife · Apr 24 '19

$0.11

Voted for 
  - No


Think from perspective of 80% population who is not rich or does not have millions in their SP.

They come, write great articles.
First,It is so hard to get rewards on steemit for good work and then even if some of our posts makes good rewards, 50% goes in curation, that would be sad

👍 jaki01, sorin.cristescu, bidesign, mixr

@nathen007 · Apr 24 '19

But it would encourage people to read and upvote their post!

Posted using [Partiko Android](https://partiko.app/referral/nathen007)

@vibesforlife · Apr 25 '19 (edited)

$0.08

Hmmm, people with higher SP does not reach the poors always. So i think it would not help the existing ecosystem anyways. Bot services will keep running and people with huge SPs will get the extra 25 from pockets of genuine content creators.

👍 jaki01, valued-customer, nathen007

@sorin.cristescu · May 1 '19

I doubt it, individual curation rewards are even smaller. It's the absolute numbers that matter, not the relative numbers. Yes, 50% of an article reward will go to curation, but that means ALL curators, not just one. So, in the end, plankton and minnows might go from 0.002 SP in curation to 0.004 SP ... Do you think the additional incentive in curation rewards will be enough to sustain engagement in the face of a dramatic drop in author rewards which might go from 4 SP to 3 SP (for a good plankton/minnow post) ? I doubt it

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

4 replies

@shadowspub · Apr 24 '19

Voted for 
  - No

👍 mixr

@erikahfit · Apr 24 '19

Voted for 
  - No

👍 mixr

@sisygoboom · Apr 24 '19

Voted for 
  - No


Increasing curation rewards will further incentive bots vote selling and auto votes, and will not make a difference to self voting

👍 mixr

@akdx · Apr 24 '19

Voted for 
  - No

👍 mixr

@hooiyewlim · Apr 24 '19

Voted for 
  - No


The only changes need to happen is the culture.

👍 mixr

properties (23)vote details (10)

@andrarchy · Apr 24 '19

$0.56

Voted for 
  - No


I think it's important to first release SMTs and Communities to see how those developments impact things. Those are major improvements that represent paradigm changing additions to the Steem ecosystem and it is important to observe how they change this complex system. 

Those features might not just solve the problem, may fundamentally shift the entire dynamics of the system such that the nature of the problem totally transforms, as does the optimal solution. Even if people still feel that curation is not optimized at that time, there is a very good chance that the solution they envision will be totally different once SMTs are out in the wild (or even just advanced Steem-Engine tokens). There is a non-negligible possibility that once SMTs are mature, people will want to remove curation rewards from the base layer entirely and raise that functionality to higher layers where they can be better customized and more rapidly adjusted.

👍 theycallmedan, jaki01, themonetaryfew, freddio, edb, valued-customer, bidesign, li-art, mixr
👎 ats-david

But nobody knows when SMTs come. Or you have some Information about?

@theycallmedan · Apr 24 '19

I can see it making sense to remove curation rewards once SMT's become the backbone of how rewards are distributed. Steem, IMO, is not a rewards currency (right now it serves that purpose, but SMT scales much better) - however, it is a distribution currency. DPOS being a vote based system requires great distribution to succeed in the long term. 
While removing curation rewards down the road, makes sense from an investor POV, not forcing me to curate in order to get my rightful claim to the inflation, I wonder if we do remove curation would we remove the upvote from the base layer altogether and just direct that to passive interest earned for powering up steem? 
And what immediately comes to mind by removing curation is the need for a decentralized resource leasing market, because people need steem to transact on the blockchain, businesses will need to allocate resource credits to new users who don't have access to Steem. - I envision most Steem will be locked up, not being circulated (esp if we remove curation, distribution will decrease dramatically) but rather used to power apps. It may be hard to find steem, or at least the price to entry may be too high for someone just looking to join a steem powered site and not care about paying for the rights to vote on witnesses, ETC.

👍 urme33, alamin33

I do not see eliminating curation rewards as synonymous with eliminating curation itself.  Is that what you meant?

Would you please have a look at my comment to @kevinwong above?  I'd love to have your consideration of it to contemplate, and I also reckon it's better to see how SMTs, Oracles, and Communities change the dynamic.

Thanks!

👍 kerrywolf, themanny, proboards3
👎 thecyclist

@prameshtyagi · Apr 24 '19

Voted for 
  - No

👍 bidesign, mixr

@pandit · Apr 24 '19

Voted for 
  - No

👍 bidesign, mixr

@renutyagi · Apr 24 '19

Voted for 
  - No

👍 bidesign, mixr

@krispst · Apr 24 '19

Voted for 
  - No

👍 bidesign, mixr

@prameshtyagi · Apr 24 '19

voted for no. We should focus on development instead of tweeking basic working mechanism.

👍 mixr

@blocktrades · Apr 24 '19

$1.60

I support the restoration of 50/50 rewards on a post (50% to the author, 50% to the curators). The change to 75% author rewards was extremely damaging, IMO, and led to excessive self-voting and finally to the bidbots we have today.

I made a post on this issue a long time ago that covers my reasoning in depth: https://steemit.com/steem/@blocktrades/voting-abuse-and-ineffective-curation-a-proposal-for-blockchain-level-change

I haven't voted in the poll, as the security of my active key is extremely important, but I would vote in favor of returning to 50/50 split, otherwise.

As a side note, the display of stake-weighted voting seems broken on dpoll right now.

👍 therealwolf, theycallmedan, bboyady, ascorphat, mixr, hashbrownhustla

@raycoms · Apr 24 '19

You should be able to send the operation manually without requiring to use your active key in steemconnect or keychain.

@emrebeyler · Apr 24 '19

Yup, it's possible to vote without keychain and Steemconnect. [Here](https://gist.github.com/emre/16e561b416de0e9f7fefc701e673d696) is a proof of concept.

👍 ismailkah

@emrebeyler · Apr 25 '19 (edited)

$0.58

> As a side note, the display of stake-weighted voting seems broken on dpoll right now.

Thanks! I have identified the error in the logs. Will be fixed with the new release. It happens in rare cases - should be ok most of the time.

👍 blocktrades, ismailkah

@shadowspub · Apr 28 '19

I don't as a rule self-vote in part because of the 75/25 split ... I definitely will should it become 50/50

@blocktrades · Apr 28 '19

Judicious self-voting was originally intended as part of the system: having more stake meant you could bring attention to your ideas/messages. This would also give users a reason to accumulate Steem (there has to be a reason to hold Steem, otherwise it won't have any value, and there will be no reward pool to speak of). On the other hand, if you self-voted on entirely silly things, the idea is that you would get downvoted.

👍 hashbrownhustla, moeknows

2 replies

@arcange · Apr 24 '19

Congratulations @theycallmedan!
Your post was mentioned in the [Steem Hit Parade](/hit-parade/@arcange/daily-hit-parade-20190423) in the following category:

* Comments - Ranked 3 with 166 comments

👍 mixr

@tonioarmani · Apr 24 '19

Voted for 
  - Yes

👍 ezravandi, mixr

@nathen007 · Apr 24 '19

Voted for 
  - Yes


Absolutely. Our urgent need is to get customers for all this content otherwise it becomes a circle jerk between content creators. What's the point in producing content if there isn't anyone to read it?

👍 mixr

@raycoms · Apr 24 '19

Voted for 
  - Yes

👍 mixr

@themonetaryfew · Apr 24 '19

Voted for 
  - Yes


Makes sense!

👍 mixr

@jeffjagoe · Apr 24 '19

Voted for 
  - No

👍 mixr

@casberp · Apr 24 '19

Voted for 
  - Yes

👍 mixr

@emrebeyler · Apr 24 '19

Voted for 
  - Yes

👍 ismailkah, mixr

@glenalbrethsen · Apr 24 '19

$0.12

Voted for
- No

I don't happen to think it really matters how much the percentage changes, the ratio probably won't ever be enough for the desired effect.

The problem is, there's never really going to be enough incentive based on ROI alone to start curating, especially manual curation, which will end up doing the most good, if that's what we're actually going for here. Autovoting and spreading out upvotes across hundreds of accounts by the larger SP accounts that actually upvote isn't going to change, other than the number of smaller votes that each can make might increase.

For me, one of two things is most likely to happen.

* As the payout changes to 50/50, Bidbots will make whatever adjustments they need to do accordingly, they will then get the higher SP through curation, and continue to get delegations from larger accounts because they can up their rental fees. Meantime, the users will end up paying more to bidbots to make up for what they're losing in the payout, or they will just get less, period. I don't see hundreds or thousands of curators with large SP suddenly appearing to make up the difference that authors will be giving up, mainly because there aren't that many large SP accounts to begin with, especially compared to the numbers of active lower SP.

* Or the system starts to fall apart quicker as fewer people post because the incentive for them to do so is gone. Fewer posts, fewer opportunities to curate, fewer opportunities to maximize profits as more curators fight for fewer rewards.

Personally, I'd like to see this tested somehow. If it can't happen on a testnet because the number of transactions, sample size, duration—what have you—wouldn't be large enough to give an adequate reading as to what would happen if there was a change, then I'd like to see those who would need to be involved with this just go ahead and do it now, without changing anything, to see what would happen. End delegations to bidbots, self-upvoting, circle upvoting, whatever activities we're talking about here, then start curating, preferably manually. Do it for say three months, less if it's possible to extrapolate what's happening. That way, at least someone's theory could be proven, rather than changes being made based on what we individually opine.

👍 jaki01, sorin.cristescu, mixr

@onthewayout · Apr 25 '19

Voted for 
  - Yes

👍 mixr

@davidke20 · Apr 25 '19

Voted for 
  - Yes

👍 mixr

@edb · Apr 25 '19

$0.12

Voted for 
  - No


Voting shouldn't be called curation. It's a misleading term. Curation means that experts help other people discover good content, preferably by creating a coherent collection for a certain theme or genre. 

Resteeming is a form of curation, but it isn't rewarded. Voting is expressing your own preference, and extending the arts metaphor, it's comparable to buying a ticket for an exhibition or concert. Upvoting posts you like (including your own) should be enough of a reward.

A high reward for voting means that whales who don't post often stay rich, while poor bloggers stay poor, no matter how active they are. It also encourages buying and selling votes, because the voting bots get part of the money back as rewards.

Participation in the network is rewarded by rewarding authors and commenters. It would be better if voting would cost money, like supporting content in the real world does.

👍 jaki01, sbi6, phoneinf, edb, mixr, votes4minnows

@spectrumecons · Apr 25 '19

> It would be better if voting would cost money

Voting does indirectly cost money. The rewards pool used for voting content comes from increasing the supply of Steem, which puts pressure on lowering the price of Steem (inflation). To cover the cost of inflation requires self-voting. Every vote for someone else is distributing coins to someone else which is like paying. The purpose of voting is to reward content that adds value to the platform. This is a community effort.

@polenbal · Apr 25 '19

Voted for 
  - No

👍 mixr

@openaccount · Apr 25 '19

Voted for 
  - No

👍 mixr

@vimukthi · Apr 25 '19

Voted for 
  - No

👍 mixr

@masoom · Apr 25 '19

Voted for 
  - Yes

👍 mixr

@barge · Apr 25 '19

Voted for 
  - Yes


works very well on smoke.io

👍 mixr

@rem-steem · Apr 25 '19

Voted for 
  - Yes

👍 mixr

@cervantes · Apr 25 '19 (edited)

Voted for
 * Yes

There was a big discussion 6 months ago about economic changes [post-discussion](https://steemit.com/witness-category/@cervantes/witness-consensus-status-to-fix-the-actual-steem-s-economic-flows-eng) but we didnt reach consensus.

👍 mixr, rogorki

@spectrumecons · Apr 25 '19

Voted for 
  - Yes


50/50 split is definitely better than the existing 25/75. 25% is not sufficient incentive when compared to vote selling or delegating to a bot. I am not even sure if 50/50 is sufficient. A few other changes are also required to make it work (e.g. separate downvote pool, option to receive curation rewards as 50% SBD, and delegation contracts). 

It might even be necessary to increase the curation rewards to as high as 75% for sufficient curation to occur. Higher curation rewards also facilitates delegation to curators rather than bots.

I have written several posts regarding the current problems with the reward system. Increasing curation rewards still looks like the best option and it appears to be quite strongly supported.

👍 mixr

@chireerocks · Apr 25 '19

Voted for 
  - Yes


Yes, and the answer is associated with basic view point and that is, Both creator and consumer chain goes hand in hand so 50/50 is good option for sure. Stay blessed.

👍 mixr

@chireerocks · Apr 25 '19

@theycallmedan, Voted for **Yes**.

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

👍 mixr

@mealhound · Apr 25 '19

Voted for 
  - Yes

👍 mixr

@chorock · Apr 25 '19

Voted for 
  - Yes

👍 mixr

@rentmoney · Apr 25 '19 (edited)

$0.07

Voted for 
  - No


The creator of the content deserves the bulk of the rewards for that content. Plus it will hurt user retention, enough damage was done with RC in that regard already.

👍 jaki01, mixr

@avina · Apr 25 '19

$0.02

an unfair approach for the author, employee should earn more

👍 yorum, mixr

@guiltyparties · Apr 26 '19

Voted for 
  - Yes

👍 mixr

@chorock · Apr 26 '19

Is it 25/75 now?

It is 12,5/75 now. 12.5 is burning.

👍 mixr

@miti · Apr 26 '19

Voted for 
  - Yes


We need to move fast to save Steem blockchain

👍 mixr

@freedomsi · Apr 26 '19

Voted for 
  - Yes

👍 mixr

@techwizardry · Apr 26 '19

Voted for 
  - No


Raising the reward without altering the reward algo is useless.

👍 mixr

@jeronimorubio · Apr 27 '19

Voted for 
  - No

👍 mixr

@joshman · Apr 27 '19

Voted for 
  - Yes

👍 mixr

@whatsup · Apr 27 '19

Voted for 
  - Yes


I am interested in trying it to see the impact.

In NO WAY to I think it will have significant changes in the Steem Price or the growth of the platform.

If it will appease a few of our stakeholders who are jealous of each other that is great.

The problem with Steem has little to do with how the math works right now and everything to do with not having an organized plan and any marketing.
Mostly I just see this as a way for our stakeholder to pick their preferred method of gaming the system.  

If you want Steem to grow we have to look outside of Steem not inside.

👍 mixr

@demotruk · Apr 27 '19 (edited)

It wouldn't be 'trying it out'. Unless we create code to automatically roll back, it's a full commitment to the change. Another hard fork to take us back to 75/25 will be an extra pile of work.

New laws are rarely repealed.

👍 whatsup, southernwolf

@whatsup · Apr 27 '19

good point

@svamiva · Apr 27 '19

It's interesting that *freedom to choose* ***any*** desired curation % for every author is never considered to be an option on Steemit.

👍 mixr, southernwolf

@southernwolf · Apr 27 '19

$0.04

I'm hearing more and more people asking for it, there's more than a few comments here alone. @demotruk has a good post about that which might be worth checking out. I do definitely think a slider for curation reward is the best option.

👍 svamiva

@svamiva · Apr 28 '19 (edited)

It's already realized on Golos, which is Steemit fork, so technically speaking it's very easy to do.
However I feel some irony that the want-to-be *decentralized communnity* is seeking some *one-size-fits-all* solution so desperatly.

1 reply

@joshman · Apr 27 '19

Voted yes. People seem to be focusing on the 50/50 being unfair to authors.  On a micro level perhaps that is a correct statement.  On a macro level I think there will be more users incentivized to curate, therefore authors will receive more rewards in the aggregate.   You could also allow people to chose the ratio themselves, and place that ratio front and center on the newsfeed, so people can decide if they want to click on the content at all based upon the ratio.  I could see generous folks like @theycallmedan or @kus-knee giving 75% to curators just to help spread more wealth around.  If people see such a ratio, they might end up dog-piling the votes and the post ends up earning them more rewards than the standard ratio.  Why not take the position of, it's your content, you choose the split.  We'll make it obvious to everyone which way you are choosing, so the community can see where your priorities lie, and whether we want to follow you or upvote your content at all.

👍 mixr

@alexvanaken · Apr 27 '19

Voted for 
  - Yes


fuck yeah

👍 mixr

@midlet · Apr 27 '19

Voted for 
  - No

👍 mixr

@midlet · Apr 27 '19

$0.10

I think the best system would be a sliding scale based on SP. When you have less than 100 SP you receive almost all your author rewards, and by the time you hit orca you're at 50/50. 

Curation rewards are totally trivial until you're at about dolphin level which very few people are, so I think the reality is this is a big problem, but for only a few people, and I think people are overestimating the positive effect on distribution this would have. 

I think it would also make Steem less attractive for creators and I think they're the primary demographic we need to attract.

I think a sliding scale would let you transition from user to investor. I think this makes sense from the investor perspective, but I think in the end most users would be negatively affected.

👍 gentlebot, southernwolf

@demotruk · Apr 27 '19

Voted for 
  - No

👍 mixr

@demotruk · Apr 27 '19 (edited)

$0.08

Pro social voters are mostly voting to support others and/or the platform. Selfish voters are voting for maximum ROI. For those who are voting pro-socially now, reducing author rewards undermines the power of their vote. For selfish voters, the math hasn't really changed and it's still better to self vote or sell to a bot. I say that as someone who makes most of their Steem via curation rewards now.

Also, I would favor a curation reward slider. Perhaps from 25% to 100% curation rewards on a post. Front ends could have a "High curation rewards" symbol on posts which meet a certain threshold.

👍 jaki01, southernwolf

@len.george · Apr 27 '19

to help an old bloke, how can you curate a post that wasn't written because it wasn't worth the effort?

👍 mixr

@stevelivingston · Apr 27 '19

Voted for 
  - Yes

👍 mixr

@faizan-ashraf · Apr 27 '19

Voted for 
  - No

👍 mixr

@greencross · Apr 27 '19

Voted for 
  - No

👍 mixr

@steevc · Apr 27 '19

$0.12

Voted for 
  - No


My instinct is against this. Gaining 100% on my curation rewards would be wiped out by what I lost of post rewards and that would be the same for most non-orcas/whales. I know some of those who invested big initially would like a better return, but I think Steem has much to gain if it can get many more small accounts. Maybe it needs some adjustment, but this seems too big.

Of course vote buying is a big problem as it skews the rewards with little relation to quality. Perhaps there could be some change to reduce the impact of votes above a certain level, but I expect the vote sellers would find ways around that, e.g. using lots of accounts.

Steem will never be perfect, but I hope it can keep going anyway.

👍 jaki01, sorin.cristescu, mixr

@masterthematrix · Apr 27 '19

$0.08

Voted for 
  - No


No, we should not introduce a Voting Slider or change the curation percentage, because this is not the fundamental problem with Steemit.
We need to acknowledge that the Proof of Brain mechanism of Steemit doesn't fit to the overall Dapp ecosystem of the Steem Blockchain. Instead of thinking how we can improve the Author / Curation system we should think about how we can change the rules of the reward pool distribution for the whole Steem Ecosystem. My proposal would be to get rid of Steemit exclusive right to mine Steem Tokens. Steemit should become its own SMT project so that the Reward Pool is free of this entanglement. Than we can develop the Reward Pool towards an DAPP Ecosystem which should put Steempower Holders, RC Holders and Voting rights for Witnesses in the center of the Ecosystem. 
Why should we mine Steem by only posting and Blogging on Steemit when the whole Ecosystem is changing towards Dapp Economy??? Please, guys lets take this serious there is no need for changing just the Curation Author reward system we need complete change of the Reward Pool Structure!

👍 masterthematrix, sorin.cristescu, mixr

@mcoinz79 · Apr 27 '19

Voted for 
  - Yes

👍 mixr

@southernwolf · Apr 27 '19

Voted for 
  - No


While I do think that curation rewards should be increased somewhat, I still hold the conviction that an author holds the right to reap the greatest reward from a post as it is their content they created and own. 75/25 is, however, maybe a bit much for the author. I might suggest 60/40 or 55/45. Or like @demotruk just asked about, maybe introduce a slider to allow authors to decide how large the curation reward should be. Because I firmly believe in the right to choose, I support this option the most!

👍 mixr

@ptgra · Apr 28 '19

Voted for 
  - Yes

👍 mixr

@tcpolymath · Apr 28 '19 (edited)

Voted for 
  - No

Giving people kickbacks for voting has always been a terrible idea. On the flipside, forcing people into the blogging ecosystem in order to retain their stake rewards has also always been a terrible idea, and that's becoming ever-more-obvious as blogging loses Steem market share to other activities. Both of those things should be removed.

👍 mixr

@scorer · Apr 28 '19

Voted for 
  - Yes

👍 mixr

@ptgram-power · Apr 28 '19

Voted for 
  - Yes

👍 mixr

@riseofth · Apr 28 '19

Voted for 
  - No

👍 mixr

@blueeyes8960 · Apr 28 '19

Voted for 
  - Yes

👍 mixr

@tiger-zaps · Apr 28 '19

$0.04

Voted for 
  - No

👍 jaki01, mixr

@miniature-tiger · Apr 29 '19

Whilst I think a change to the curation mechanism would be beneficial, the proposed approach (like the current system) is too inflexible. Different Steem users have different priorities and any new system should reflect this, allowing Steem to cater to all needs.

For example, some accounts may want to provide upvotes 100% to the author, i.e. with no curation, or at a lower level than the current 25%. Examples could include dApps trying to build their community, or "basic income" style systems.

Clearly some accounts (those currently delegating to bid-bots) would prefer much higher curation even than the proposed 50% but perhaps could be convinced to manually curate at higher curation reward levels.

I would propose:
* Removing the non-linear element of curation - a move to "flat curation". The idea of "content discovery" does not really exist on Steem and the incentives of the current system are misaligned, discouraging voting on content as it accumulates votes.
* A completely flexible curation slider (0 - 100%) at the discretion of the voter.

As I see it, the goal for the "content creation" side of Steem is to get people to vote on the content they like best, irrespective of the timing of the vote or the existing rewards on the post. This will get the best content onto trending.

As for the rewards, you cannot force unwilling people to give vote rewards to others - there are, and have always been, many ways to avoid this on Steem. You can only encourage them back to manual curation by providing the flexibility to distribute the level of rewards they are comfortable with.

👍 ezravandi, cheneats

properties (23)vote details (12)

@jaki01 · Apr 30 '19 (edited)

$1.46

Voted for 
  - No


I think @valued-customer and @krnel explained already very well, why they are against an increased curation reward. I agree with them.

I read the argument that other methods (vote selling, self-voting) would be much more profitable for (money) investors (don't forget that authors are also investors, <em>time</em> investors) than curating, thus curating should be made more attractive.
I just ask what a few times more profitable means if at the same time the STEEM value is more and more decreasing? I would love to earn <em>less</em> STEEM than now if only the STEEM value would increase again. And it will only increase if we manage to attract more users (who in the best case are contributing interesting content). Only then potential bigger investors (companies) could be sure to reach a big audience (for example when advetising their products).
It's hard enough for new users anyway: to create an account, have enough RC for upvoting and answering comments, earning any small amount with their posts. It would get even worse! And if then for example I would be one of the few upvoters of such a small new account I would get a big part of the author reward myself (as curation) instead to give it to the author ...

I really like to curate already NOW with only 25 % curation reward if I find good stuff (I don't care when I vote and who else did vote). I curate because I like what I see. I think the voting behavior of people who are curating this way wouldn't change much with higher curation reward. I guess only people who curate just for earning money, most of the time in an automated way (without reading what they curate) would be affected by this change.

👍 bleujay, davidorcamuriel, kobold-djawa, endracsho, icuz, topoisomerase, lintang, bukfast, srikandi, steem-queen, jasuly, mixr

@davidorcamuriel · Apr 29 '19

Voted for 
  - No

👍 mixr, frau-technik
👎 tongchat27

@dimarss · Oct 29 '19

Why you downvote my original post?
https://steemit.com/photofeed/@dimarss/perfection-mushroom

@lfgiaa · Jul 18 '20

$0.07

I'm grateful to be here with you in this community, and I hope we'll always be helpful.
And we support each other with love and appreciation

👍 lfgiaa

@kobold-djawa · Apr 29 '19

Voted for 
  - No

👍 mixr

@endracsho · Apr 29 '19

Voted for 
  - No

👍 mixr

@icuz · Apr 29 '19

Voted for 
  - No

👍 mixr

properties (23)vote details (22)

@lintang · Apr 29 '19

Voted for 
  - No

👍 penghuren, ezravandi, jadabug, hdu, mixr, votes4minnows, rpc34, b33r, douglas1, huber, edm0nd24, rii, awesome-n, kagee, cceleste, heger, selise, mitha-b, beissler, pommer, murhadimur, lordofreward

@bukfast · Apr 29 '19

Voted for 
  - No

👍 ezravandi, cheneats, jadabug, trailreward, hdu, mixr, votes4minnows, auliamadan, babysister, petrm, no0o, n33d, freeskate, murhadimur, b33r, awesome-n, kagee, beissler, pommer, irenweiher, dontblink, konso

properties (23)vote details (22)

@srikandi · Apr 29 '19

Voted for 
  - No

👍 penghuren, ezravandi, jadabug, hdu, mixr, votes4minnows, murhadimur, rij, dontblink, konso, paidforwinrar, giesela, auliamadan, babysister, petrm, no0o, n33d, freeskate, beissler, irenweiher

properties (23)vote details (20)

@topoisomerase · Apr 29 '19

Voted for 
  - No

👍 mixr

@jasuly · Apr 29 '19

Voted for 
  - No

👍 mixr

properties (23)vote details (48)

@steem-queen · Apr 29 '19

$0.63

Voted for 
  - No

👍 davidorcamuriel, kobold-djawa, endracsho, icuz, topoisomerase, lintang, bukfast, srikandi, steem-queen, ezravandi, delabo, jadabug, jasuly, hdu, mixr, votes4minnows, stevenwsmith, mcoreyy, badeder, gierit, hljk, yeee, petergriffin2, vvvvv, pushsteem, steempush, miggel, wirsing, lost-and-found, steiller, irenweiher, goyo88, samuelgr, joshi110, manhat, isabelll, walker5, dolleyb, rij, dontblink, konso, paidforwinrar, giesela, auliamadan, babysister, no0o, freeskate, murhadimur

@doifeellucky · Apr 30 '19

Voted for 
  - Yes

👍 mixr

@shortsegments · May 2 '19

Hi
I apologize for being late to comment on this post regarding a change to the author/curator reward percentage.

I would like to propose a solution to this issue, at least a theoretic one, using partially existing infrastructure and rules, but also taking advantage of an existing capability in Steemit code, which would allow people to choose to change this split themselves.

I think that in theory this could be done, and it would not require special permissions from Steemit, inc, as it requires only user granted permissions to change the split for an individual user. I hope I have summarized the problem correctly and explained my proposal clearly. If not please contact me.
@shortsegments

Take care

👍 mixr

@prakashghai · May 8 '19

YES
but only to content manually upvoted (no bots)

👍 mixr