Would just increase the gulf between haves and have nots. Bots would still be delegated to as their take would increase. Newer members who cast dust votes? Nothing doubled is still nothing.
Nothing wrong with requiring skin in the game, but the pitch has been come and earn with the skin being your talent to write or network. This further deviates from that pitch, which will only serve to further disenfranchise many who come. I know as a writer myself, I have pointed out many writers will not choose to do research pieces requiring many hours of research to see those benefiting from it get the same amount as they did for doing the work. It's like saying "I need more reward to enjoy the fruits of your labor"
What about the fruits of my labour? AS I said in the article above, people don't seem to recognize that while YouTube make billions, most make zero from YouTube. Even the large 'stars' will earn a pittance in comparison. There is a reason they don't release their numbers but cherrypick contributors they pay.
As said, on Smoke 50/50 has been a massive distributing force and most of those with large stakes barely post if at all because they can earn without it. It has closed the gaps massively.
You compare your already compensated consumption to that of the creator of that which is consumed?
This is not a closed ecosystem, people are investing into it with the work they do in other domains.
Not sure how that answered my question.
I would go further to point out that if the answer to the question I asked is yes, it reveals ones opinion of what one is consuming. Is it not already huge that one can earn up to 25% compensation for enjoying a product, it needs to be equal to the creator of said product or, no thank you?
It's not equal at all. The creator earns cumulatively, they will always be making more than any one Curator from the same content. Even at 25%/75%, cumulatively they could still earn more than any one Curator. The point that many don't seem to get is that without the incentive to curate why would anybody vote for anyone other than themselves. That's why a 50/50 split works well on Smoke, and that's why we should at least try it before chucking it as a loss, because the incentive has doubled to curate, while the author has only lost a potential third, yet right now, a third of nothing is not much but imagine if more people curate now, that third could very well not come into play at all.
Posted using Partiko Android
The proposition is indeed to make the splitequal. You are correct in that the curator is at the disadvantage when it comes to time placement of vote as well as SP contributing. Which I have pointed out that for lower holding accounts in many cases will result in nothing (dust vote) doubled is still nothing.
I do it because I appreciate the words and occasionally the video I consumed. I will use you as an example. I have voted many times for your comments as they enrich me watching you dissect the structures you focus on. In many of those votes, I was the sole voter of your comment (as usually the structure you are deconstructing is not found to be appreciated by the creator of it). Under that circumstance, I would indeed get 50% of the reward. I am already gifted by reading your mind at work. Further gifted by receiving currently 25% of my vote back. In no way do I believe I should get a higher cut for the quality you created.
It's equal in the sense that you equal to what I get, but it's not equal in the sense that you will earn as much as I do because the author can accumulate more than one vote but the curator only gets that 50%, more or less. Think about it like this: more incentive to curate means more comments will be voted. It doesn't mean less comments. The same thing for posts.
Posted using Partiko Android
yes, this is the thing and then with the competition and the way curation works, the smaller accounts will curate for higher percentage than the larger who will have to be very lucky to get 50% back as they would either need to be the only voter or have a much larger come in on top which isn't likely.
Then, because less large accounts need to post to earn and instead just curate, there is more space for producers.
Then, because the large votes are less likely to stack ontop of each other unless the content is good, there will be less curators front running the same authors on auto (I think) and then there will be eyes on a wider amount of content as people will look for what they like instead of looking for what increases their curation. (this last one isn't expressed well but it is late and I am very tired)
The only way is to experiment. The resounding sentiment the community echoed when @dan was around and right after he left steem was more frequent HF with only one or 2 changes. That has yet to manifest even slightly. I haven't seen anyone in community say that for almost a couple years now, everyone woke up and realized that Stinc was deaf. More frequent HFs with only one or two changes, and with no multiple changes to the same mechanism. We need the data, and without a well set-up experiment we won't learn anything definitively.
Posted using Partiko Android
I completely agree. These batch hardforks make it impossible to know definitively what is doing what.
I guess I didn't understand your question then :)
Why isn't 25% (or even 10%, 5%) enough? Is the content you vote on something that contributes to your life in some way, or is it something that is a burden you must go through to earn some tokens? A burden heavy enough that it should require the author to further incentivize you to click that upvote button to make it worth your time?
you think this is worth 300 SBD?
https://steemit.com/mindset/@chbartist/what-happens-when-your-mind-is-wired-up-the-wrong-way
You know why those little accounts vote on it, encourage it? curation. they don't give a shit about the content.
Most of the content on this platform doesn't deserve much at all but, with no curators, none of them are going to get any at all unless they buy the vote. Distribution has to happen and for that to translate into vote value on posts, those it is distributed to need to power up and vote also. But without enough incentive to power up, they aren't going to and instead they are going to keep selling and, the amount of curators:content creators keeps worsening.
So maybe we start them off with not having dust votes? That would be an alternative path we could take.
I will say that under the current system it is worth that, as the author in question paid out of pocket to get it that high, and a good chance the votes he paid for he actually saw a loss (rewarding those who are here for investment returns solely, and delegate to the vote bots). Which is the basis for increased curation POV, to give higher returns to investors.
I don't understand the mindset that thinks if you increase the revenue side of the vote bots it won't create more delegations as their slice of the pie gets bigger on the back end.
I don't see this as being about distribution, as it benefits lower SP accounts very minimally to nothing.
If people are of the nature to take the time and curate, guessing they already are. I don't see this mass exodus from the delegation renting for large stakeholders to suddenly sink a large time investment into curation if this comes to pass. They just get more cookies for what they already are doing.
(Why isn't 25% (or even 10%, 5%) enough?) How about i vote sell, self vote or mine a different crypto / invest elsewhere to make my ROI and pay the author of the post directly in liquid steem for the reading enjoyment? Like in real life:)
Forgive me if i didn't fully understand what you wrote. that's how i read it.
The point I was making was why isn't 25% enough. In other venues we receive nothing as a reward for consuming others work. Why is there a push here for the creator/author to give up more of their reward for the consumers of their product?
There are many posts weekly I curate that involved many hours of research on the part of the author. I don't understand the mindset that I should be rewarded even higher than I am now at their expense for benefiting from their work.
There has been much talk about lack of quality content here (although I find more than I have the ability to upvote) and paying the quality content producers less seems a sure way to not only discourage more from coming, but be the reason some who are already here leave.
The creator of the product deserves more than an equal share than their audience, imo.
If you want to look at it from a consumption stand point, One consumes content, the other consumes a stake weighted vote from the pool. To have that stake takes the creation of stake also. People have created stake right? It has taken time, effort, investment, risk... Should people not read and consume it all themselves?