The curation formula is currently broken in a number of ways, most notably, the fact that it encourages maximizing curation rewards by dog-piling authors who are already making the most rewards. I have posted on adjusting this formula a number of times, but coming to consensus about how to adjust the curation formula is contentious and will create relative winners and losers.
The current formula has achieved mostly the opposite of the intended goal. It makes it game-theoretically correct to routinely vote for the exact same authors who are already very popular and need no curation. Perhaps worse, it has created a situation wherein automating your vote is necessary to compete:
However, there is a stop-gap option that (I believe) is both easier to implement and few would have reason to object to.
Allowing the author a dropdown box, or slider, (much like the vote slider), to choose how much curation to split with readers, and potentially a checkbox (similar to "Upvote Post?") whether to engage the 30-minutes "curation timer", is an easy way to help with this problem. Authors who wish to share more of their rewards to encourage curators and followers would be better able to complete with the popular top authors routinely in trending by sharing more of their own rewards. Authors who choose not to adjust the setting will be unaffected.
I have mocked up an example interface for curation splits. I created pre-filled options, but I think a free-entry box (simply enter a percentage) would be preferable. Whether curation rewards should be technically able to be reduced below 25% is a separate matter requiring debate. I'm inclined to think this is a bad idea, so setting the option only to increase curation from 25% is likely to be far less contentious.
This would also go a long way in giving authors options for dealing with auto-voting readers and lack of engagement.
Credit to @Snowflake for discussion/genesis of this idea.
Open Source Contribution posted via Utopian.io