RE: Revisiting 50/50 curation
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.