RE: Lambos, Beaches, and Mansions?
You are right. The current system is probably 80% or so content indifferent because it is the most profitable way to act, which sucks. But I don't think 50/50 is the way to solve this mess.
As a content producer giving away roughly 42% of the rewards (I would get 50%+curation as the author) seems quite disappointing. Very disappointing to be honest.
But there are other ways to solve this better. I think this to be a much better solution than 50/50:
"Let them maximize their profit 100% guaranteed. Let stake be 'locked' up via a switch so that it cannot vote but automatically takes 10x 100% vote values from the pool each day at the 2.4 hr maximum rate. What this means is that those who choose to invest passively are silent investors with the percentage of the stake they lock away. They can unlock and use it as stake if they choose under normal rules but while locked, it has zero mobility."
@tarazkp proposed this in this post https://steemit.com/steem/@tarazkp/locking-stake-for-100-passive-income-improving-content-helping-apps
It just effectively reduces the rewards pool for the rest of the voters that will behave the same.
Pls explain to me how that reduces the reward pool? I bet you can't, because it does not reduce the reward pool at all. It just distributes the rewards a little different. You probably meant that voters will get less, but that is not because of a smaller reward pool.
The investor gets 100% of his vote.
The bidbots user still gets 85% of his vote.
The selfupvoter gets 75% of his vote.
Only curators lose a little. Investors gain a little, but the shitposts on trending disappear. The bidbots will likely disappear over time too, because why would freedom or any other big player delegate any longer?
Let’s say X, Y, Z goes into 100% passive staking, it’ll effectively reduce the rewards pool for the rest of the remaining voters.
"Let’s say X, Y, Z goes into 100% passive staking, it’ll effectively reduce the rewards pool for the rest of the remaining voters."
That same X,Y,Z is already going to "passive staking" when people are selling their votes to bid bots. Not directly, but it's the same effect. But now they also mess up the purpose Steem originally had as Trending is filled by posts that were promoted... So I'd rather split these groups to two rather than forcing everyone to become passive staker
The fact that you can get your post to trending page by using upvote bots creates a real demand for steem. Since a lot of people buy steem just for that purpose. If it wasn't for that and the dapps build on steem why would you want to own it? Promoting a post the old fashioned way is not cost effective. Then you can better advertise on google adwords.
It does create demand for Steem and in my opinion it also decreases it. Our trending consists of only ads these days, rather than content people have personally deemed good after reading them. But I'm over this topic.
It will reduce the reward pool, because it will give everyone the free path to automatically get their revenue from it based on SP. Which will probably be more than those users selling their votes/delegating to bid-bots.
Now, I'm not saying that this is wrong - I'm actually in favour of implementing a system that separates investors, wanting to earn ROI on their investment automatically and users wanting to participate in the voting system.
But the implementation might need a bit more thinking.
So much talk of getting 100% rewards - has anybody ever tried getting over 100% of the blockchain rewards passively? The blockchain currently yields about 22% APR for an upvote, author-rewards are about 16%, the inflation rate is around 8.5%. Just look at isteemd.com for a sample.
(@therealwolf should treat that as a rhetorical question!)
There may be an argument that some investor-status SP could yield the inflation rate (or maybe half), but why would someone bother when they can earn more through existing passive means?