I am definitely in favour of using existing inflation.
Donations will be unreliable. There might be donations to begin with but eventually people will stop. They will lose interest or feel its unfair that donating falls on just a few people.
Taking from authors is the best approach. Witnesses only receive 10% of the inflation and struggling to cover costs as it is. The 15% interest is needed as passive income for investors. Curation rewards are incredibly low compared to author rewards. The current distribution of author rewards is greatly flawed, just look at: https://usesteem.com/steemwhales/topauthors.
I suggest we take 15% from author's for the proposal and another 15% from the author's to give to the curators. See table below.
If we are going to hardfork to adjust rewards, we might as well fix the curation rewards problem at the same time.
why the fuck always authors suffer from it ? they pay money to get some reward if there is free money in steem then ok but 99% upvotes for author are paid they will start loosing money and leave steemit forever
One of the reasons people choose to sell votes or delegate to bots is because curation rewards are low. If curation rewards could be competitive with vote selling, more people would curate content. A few other changes would need to be made to increase the effectiveness of this approach. Such as downvote pools and inclusion of sbd in curation rewards. I have written about such changes several times.
Natural curation would also enable the more popular content to gain exposure, which will be good for the platform.
Posted using Partiko Android
Curation rewards go up, bots benefit more from indiscriminate vote selling. Another important reason people delegate to bots is because of the passive income they can get by being absent.
So, this could mean a lot of things. More people might even begin voting indiscriminately on posts, acting as bots themselves. More people will powerup to get more curation rewards, increasing the price of steem. A great idea, but it's worth exploring and weighing the pros and cons.
I don't think this will be the case. Many users delegate to bots because returns are so much higher than alternatives. Raising curation rewards gives users a better alternative to earn from holding stake. I would expect, if curation rewards are raised sufficiently, users to undelegate from bots and more actively curate. Bots earn curation rewards, curation rewards are based on stake. Less delegation will result in less rewards for bots.
I still maintain that it might not be the case. Bots offer a way for inactive accounts to earn pretty decent curation rewards. More active users might undelegate and start curating manually, but there will still be a large group of people who will stick to the bots, especially now that curation became even more beneficial.
Higher curation rewards will also mean higher rewards to dapps. Inactive accounts can choose to delegate to dapps instead of bots. If dapps are also earning revenue from advertising, delegators can get a share of that as well. If curation rewards remain low dapps will struggle to compete with bots.
Again, I strongly disagree with simply incentivizing profiteering from curation more than we already do.
Please consider other values than money alone, and make a more nuanced proposal, since all that providing greater curation rewards, and decreasing author rewards, will do is focus rewards more on extant stake, while reducing the incentive to produce content. You must be aware of the issues regarding retention of accounts, and decreasing author rewards will exacerbate the problem.
Why not just eliminate curation rewards completely? People already vote on other platforms without any direct curation rewards.
Of course, on those platforms they can't cast votes that provide rewards either, so there's no incentive to selfvote, which curation rewards do decrease incentive to do. However, no matter how high you set curation rewards the incentive to self vote, circle jerk, and etc., won't be eliminated, unless you so decrease author rewards that there will be no incentive to produce content to curate.
There are other values that need to be rewarded via curation, and just changing how much money curation generates won't solve the problems that currently plague curation. Gaining trending or hot status are examples of nonfinancial rewards. There are others too. Please accord other societal values some weight in considering how best to incentivize curation, so we aren't simply furthering the idea of mining steem as opposed to creating a society.
Edit: also, this completely fails to apply any tax on accounts that don't post or comment. There are accounts that only flag, for example. Why give them more power financially than folks creating content and curating? Taxing everyone else will increase the financial power of accounts that only flag, only curate, or do neither.
See this comment, https://steemit.com/blocktrades/@spectrumecons/re-valued-customer-re-spectrumecons-re-whatsup-re-blocktrades-pros-and-cons-of-two-versions-of-steem-proposal-system-20190209t063647531z
Please see my (thoroughly edited - I hope!) reply there.
Thanks!