RE: Witness consensus status to fix the actual steem’s economic flows (ENG)
I’m sure there are plenty of old posts from 2016 that will likely mention the fact that manual curation took a nosedive when it was changed from 50/50 to 75/25. So there’s that.
But more importantly, since the only way to earn from your investment of STEEM is either through capital appreciation or curating, it clearly makes economic sense that ~doubling potential profits on your staked STEEM will make purchasing STEEM more attractive. With that potential doubling, I’m sure you’ll find some curators looking to maximize their returns through improved voting practices.
This isn’t a static environment and we shouldn’t assume that investment choices and behavior won’t change when incentives do. Real-world economics and the history of this blockchain have both demonstrated otherwise.
There's a whole lot of "it clearly makes economic sense" and not a whole lot of trying it. You have the freedom to try it.
Of self voting or vote selling
Right. And it appears that he would prefer self-voting and vote-selling as opposed to better curating.
But I should note that the reduced daily vote target and full linear rewards has contributed to increased self-voting as well. I know that linear is likely here to stay, but we can certainly increase the vote target to 20. Ten is far too low. A side-effect of increasing it would also likely be better distribution, since it would require voting on more posts in order to meet those daily targets.
Increasing curation rewards is just one piece of the puzzle, but it’s an important piece - and not just for content discovery/ranking. It potentially doubles the incentive to buy and power up STEEM. And right now, there doesn’t appear to be much that’s attractive to investors. Buying STEEM and holding SP is literally the most important aspect of the blockchain. That’s what makes any of this work.
How much harder is it to self vote 20 comments than 10, or to sell 20 votes than 10? I think hardly at all.
Maybe it makes a difference but I prefer to get a bit closer to the root causes.
Yes I agree on that.