RE: Block-Change You Can Believe In!
I don't have much of an opinion on linear vs. superlinear or removing delgations. I think the curation percentage is a big-ticket item, though.
I have long advocated for authors to be able to set their own author/voter ratio on a per-post basis. I think it's very unlikely that there's any one-size-fits-all number that's right for all authors and voters. And it seems that since that can't be done, maybe the bid-bots are mostly just a high-friction way to find that equilibrium by shifting steem from the authors' hands to the voters' hands.
I agree about rewarding content consumers, too, but I have no idea how that would be accomplished. It might be interesting to know how the Vice Industry Token is planning to reward people for watching their videos.
I've seen you advocate this. I think it could be a great idea to try, since we're apparently trying anything that STINC wants on a whim. :)
However, I do think that curation rewards should at least be set at a fixed minimum. And that minimum, in my opinion, should be 50% of the allocated rewards.
Nothing tricky. I'm just referring to those who read and upvote content. They would receive the rewards via curation - at the much higher reward percentage.
l do agree that if the percentage is to remain fixed (as it likely will), 50% would be far better than what we have now. I should have mentioned that in my earlier reply. The current incentives definitely favor the authors, and disadvantage voters, which discourages people from powering up their rewards (especially w/ the SBD peg broken).
Even just redirecting the early-voting penalty back to the rewards pool as was promised for HF20 would probably help a little, but I don't think it's anywhere near enough.
It's a pittance. The ~12% of rewards are also just going back into the general pool, I believe. So it's not all going back to curators.
I guess if we did the math, based on the numbers I've been using, it would be around 12% of the remaining 13%, which would be 1.56% of the original split. So, we might see a bump to 13.56% of the total payout of posts. Authors would still be receiving 86.44% of the rewards. (Crude math, but math nonetheless.)
In other words - it's an insignificant amount. It would have practically no effect on anything.