RE: Make Steemit Great Again: Fork This Place!
I agree with most of these.
Rewarding those who actually buy steem power is essential to increase the value of steem so it makes sense to reward curators more. https://steemit.com/steem/@snowflake/steem-inflation-a-tool-to-create-demand Cutting curation rewards by 38% is just insane especially if you are not going to create demand from somewhere else.
Regarding 1) I don't see the point of using any curve at all. This curve doesn't discourage self voting
https://steemit.com/steem/@snowflake/reward-curve-doesn-t-discourage-self-voting
A comment reward pool is a band aid solution, if everyone had a voice and rewards disparity wasn't so big people would vote a lot more for comments. Let's not beat around the bush and solve the problems at the root.
Overall this proposal sound good to me, I still think that it won't be enough to incentivize average joe to power up to gain influence because 99% of their votes will still be worth $0. However I think its a step in the right direction. I will support witnesses who want this.
I can't 100% sure but I'm reasonably confident your 99% is far off. With flattening the curves (both the stake curve and the time curve) and increasing the total curation pool, smaller votes will be worth more than $0 quite often. Working out some numbers here would be good. Consider that just restoring 50/50 from the current 88/12 and changing nothing else would increase all curation rewards (including the smallest) by over 4x. That's enough to push a whole lot of voters' rewards from $0 to >$0.
You are correct, it will probably be less than 99% and will improve power disparity which is why I am in favor of this proposal. But i still think the vast majority of users won't have any influence which really is an issue. The average joe is not going to spend tens of thousands to get influence on a social media site, he is going to pay a couple hundreds at most. A couple hundred bucks would make no difference regardless of any curve. Currently the system is out of touch with the reality, the whole thing should be scaled down and investors seperated from users.
Agree. Flattening the reward curve would help though. Is it enough? I don't know, but it should at least be tried.
Ofc it should be tried :) Actually it should just be removed completely.
The curve serves no purpose at all, it was meant to discourage self voting which is a non issue. Like I said already, self voting is like trolling, if someone were to do it repeatedly they would get downvoted and blacklisted. Reducing the large majority of users's rewards because of some issue that doesn't exist is ridiculous. I don't even understand why so many people want to 'flatten' it, just remove it already.
You keep saying this and I keep thinking you're missing something. How can you know it's a non-issue when the curve is currently dis-incentivizing it? If we made the curve linear (what you call "removing" the curve, which is also very confusing), a whale could come along and spam empty posts to the blockchain, upvote all of them, and receive a vastly higher reward than they would in the current system. Your answer is to downvote, but why hack the solution when we can bake it into the algorithms?
because of the reverse action it would be still not poor 50:50 !
So I make a step further and will demand the curators to get 62% and the authors 38% and use only one pool for rewarding posts and comments!
That's one approach. I'd prefer if the overall split weren't dependent on the auction/penalty. That can be done by giving it to later curators on the same post, as suggested in the OP, or I think better by keeping content and curation in separate pools according to the specified allocation (be it 50/50 or 75/25 or whatever). Any penalty on curation of one item would slightly increase the available funds for rewarding curation on others.