RE: Pre-Release: HF19 Linear Rewards!
That's a distinction without a meaningful difference regarding speculators/investors.
There is actually a very meaningful difference. If you're talking about "passive" income or ROI, then there is none on the Steem platform. You have to be actively involved in order to earn, especially when there is no interest. (And no, the SP "interest" isn't really interest.) Speculating on prices isn't "passive" income and it's not at all related to rewards on the platform anyway.
You are if you don't want to waste voting power.
Whether or not your voting power is "wasted" simply depends on how active you choose to be. If you can't vote 40 times per day, then you can't maximize your rewards. I don't see how this needs a remedy. Maximizing rewards should involve maximizing your activity and the quality of it.
If I can find and curate 40 good posts and you can only find 10, why should your total curation efforts earn the same as mine? That's certainly not "equality." It's essentially a disincentive for the person doing more work.
When you have a lower number like 10, it means you'll have a lot more rshares distributed by actual humans than by bots.
No - it just means that you'll have far less activity overall. I don't care about bots. They're really not an issue. And I really don't care about the automated voting. It's something that will have less impact as the platform scales and the user base continues to increase.
I'd much rather have humans determine which posts become popular than have bots/automated voting/curation trails doing that job.
Humans are behind all of those. At some point, they had to set up the automation. But as I said...it's not a long-term issue. Trying to "fix" a bot/automation issue is a short-term outlook. Hard fork changes ought to be made with a long-term outlook.
The change of the 40-vote target seems to be an attempt to "equalize" the platform when 1) there is no equality and there doesn't need to be, 2) it defeats the entire point of the system and the reward incentives, and 3) it continues to disregard what social media actually is - which is essentially a popularity contest and a time sink. Someone from Steemit, Inc. really needs to understand these things if they insist on tinkering with the economics of the Steem code.
I have to get back to work, so I'm not going to respond to a lot of this. We've been over it and are beating a dead horse at this point. I am going to clarify a couple things though:
Passive investing has nothing to do with earning curation rewards. I think this is where your confusion lies. There is nothing at all passive about acquiring stake and using it for curation purposes. Curation requires active participation/work, whether it's manual voting or setting up and monitoring automated voting.
If your argument is that the vote target needs to be lowered because of "passive" investors, then there is essentially no argument to be made. Those aren't passive investors. They're lazy curators, they simply don't have the time to participate, or the incentive is not high enough to entice more participation.
There is no passive income on this platform. Passive investment is not passive income. Earning curation rewards is neither of those. It requires work...and it ought to require work. That's how the system was designed and how it's supposed to properly function.
This is social media, not a 401K. It's all about active participation.
There are different levels of passiveness. Someone who buys Steem/Power and doesn't participate in the network at all is as passive as it gets.
Someone who buys Steem/Power and gets on Steemit for 20 minutes a day is less passive than the person above, but still far more passive than the person who spends all day on Steemit.