RE: A Possible Cure For Steem?
"Your idea is to have everyone self-upvote their own articles automatically on publishing, however if they self-vote their own comments, they lose half to null and it goes back into the reward pool. When they curate someone else with an up-vote, they use the same vote-weight calculation as now, except that half goes to the up-voted person and half goes back to the curator?"
Yes, that's basically it. Every outgoing vote gives the VOTER 50% and the VOTEE (target) 50%. (Although, I am playing with making it 45/45/10 with the 10 boosting curation rewards.)
"In that case, I presume there would no longer be a need for the 75%/25% split between curators and authors? The split would now be 50/50 but without the complications of the half-hour penalty and who voted first?"
Although I am considering adjusting it, I would not change the reward split. I think curation is already not rewarding enough. I want to encourage it more than now, not less. Hence, the possibility of taking 10% of VP and making it a curation boost.
I have a lot of suggestions for changing the curation formula as part of this change (possibly including rep as a factor, etc).
"However how would flags be treated?"
I wouldn't change flags with this change. I'm already messing with VP and curation, that's too much at once. Flags could be changed independently or not, depending on what people like.
"If the slider is still employed, then can everyone expect to see their earnings reduced by that extra 25% that goes back to the curator?"
I would keep the slider and not necessarily change the 25% curation rewards. I don't want to make it so that voting on anyone is equally good. Curation rewards should be higher, not lower.
Thank-you for the clarification. Will this proposal be going to all the witnesses for a vote?
Oh, no, I'm nowhere near that influential. It's simply an idea I'm working up into a post. Best-case, the community likes it and maybe some of the ideas get integrated into a future fork. I'll peg that chance at like...1%.
Far more likely is it gets ignored and makes like $15. I have a feeling people are going to have a tough time seeing it for what it is.
I think rewarding users with stake is fundamentally good, but we've gotten a pretty long ways down the "demonizing economic self-interest" rabbit-hole around here since HF-19. I suspect it will be one of my more controversial, and therefore higher effort / lower reward, posts.
Funny how that works, isn't it? I was reading some of those posts that tell you how to make more income and that was exactly one of the list items; don't polarize yourself. Keep everyone happy with light positive posts and don't say anything that will make anyone upset with you.
YUP! Great advice if you want a platform full of phony people saying shit just to make money. Personally, I would rather reward someone who disagrees with me but opens my mind to new concepts. Learning and growing comes from open and honest discussions, not from saying the same thing everyone else is saying just to fit in and win the popularity contest.