>No amount of tweaking the reward system algorithm will change that. If we change the curation reward percentage then the vote selling services / self upvoters will simply adjust how they work to take advantage of the new model.

This is true, but it still doesn't change the fact 50/50 makes curation much more attractive then 25/75, thus people would be more willing to delegate to curation bots that put in the effort to find content that will get a lot of upvotes and not delegate to bid bots. People who sell votes will take a hit because people only pay for the meat of the vote as curation is terrible with vote bots (ppl use bots on day old content etc.)
- Not saying this is going to make it perfect, but I think it's better than the current setup. 

I agree with downvotes; I like your idea. Just fixing how downvotes work will at least help keep vote buyers/bid bots in check, so they don't just run rampant upvoting any content.

Ok then Downvote Services pop up and the Steem Blockchain will sucks. So vote seller earn twice. One time with upvote and another time with downvote.

>then the vote selling services / self upvoters will simply adjust how they work to take advantage of the new model.

Im glad to see someone a bit more reputable then myself is putting this forward. 
The problem here is that those that are for 50/50 have a overly optimistic view of the outcome. No one for one second is even willing to consider the fact that vote selling services will simply adjust.

Not only am i against this proposal, i fear it. Imo, <b>Its probably the worst idea with the biggest support right now.</b>
STEEM community size and retention are in direct correlation to the STEEM price meaning that if you cut author earnings you can expect a lot of content creators to leave and user numbers drop off. Assuming that vote sellers that are completely uninterested in curating will suddenly start curating after the vote selling services adjust is completely unrealistic. 
The only time a cut in author earnings should be encouraged is if it leads to increase in price of STEEM. <b>For that very reason im advocating for the cut to happen after the @blocktrades DAO is live and the inflation to be used to fund projects.</b>
1. The loss in author rewards goes into improving the STEEM ecosystem which should by all account increase STEEM price.
2. Vote selling will be reduced due to lower demand and bots will have a much harder time adjusting since the curation would remain at 25%

Instead of giving a few curators more money and fixing nothing, i think this is the proper path to take that would have a much greater positive effect.   

Hey, @yabapmatt.

I'm agreeing that tweaking the author/curator ratio won't really have the desired effect, for all the reasons you describe and probably more, so thanks for that.

I understand what you're saying about the downvoting, and in a world where people actually used downvotes properly, I might be with you there. I wonder how this rewards for downvoting doesn't end up being abused too, worse than downvoting is now. As it stands, two larger accounts decide they don't like each other and people who have nothing to do with it, but because one or the other curates a post or comment, all of a sudden, they're being hit, too, along with obnoxious comments where it's painfully obvious they simply don't care who gets it.

So, how would you go about securing the downvoting incentive system so that people aren't just downvoting to milk it, and/or taking folks who have nothing to do with the skirmish down with them? And where would this separate pool draw from?

score!! :P

Yeah, Keychain support landed with a `shortest time/effort` to catch up with the steem alliance poll. So, Keychain is not a replacement for the SC yet, in the dPoll authentication system. Its usable only for voting now.

damn. fixed it for me. @eonwarped? Any other ideas?

It is just so difficult to get everybody agree on something, especially the high stakeholders.