Would like to see it funded and am fine with most coming from Author rewards, but since we still have plenty of witnesses and back up witnesses, maybe some of the funding should come from curation and witness rewards also.
Either way, I think SPS is good and I think funding it is a must.
Curation rewards should not be reduced under any circumstance. So few people curate content because curation rewards are low. Taking from authors is really the only reasonable option.
I happen to strongly disagree. I note rewarding curation so as to potentiate focusing on profitability actually inhibits curation that focuses on quality of content. While I don't have a specific and demonstrable proposal to put forward, I note the gamification of curation has created the extant trending page, which I am confident no one finds optimal.
Curation rewards may not need to be reduced, but it may also be that curation would be improved were curation rewards eliminated altogether. I do hope that communities and SMTs will soon enable testing of various parameters so as to generate data and support improving curation to limit the impact of mere profiteering on content generation. There are various essential social values that aren't adequately superable via the extant curation mechanism, and we need more data before we can determine what precisely those are, and how best to effect them.
Further, values aren't ubiquitous, and no one shares the exact suite of values weighted identically with anyone. Given how curating content effects societal values, I am sure a spectrum of curative mechanisms will eventually prove optimal. Society is far more, and more valuable, than finance and economic factors alone.
Edit: there are accounts on the blockchain that neither post nor comment, but do curate. Limiting support mechanisms to author rewards alone gives such accounts a free ride. Since such accounts likely have very little support from the community anyway, taxing the rest of the community going forward greatly increases the relative power such accounts will have in the future.
Also, some accounts don't upvote at all, and the entirety of their impact on the blockchain is flagging. I am presently struggling to properly qualify the impact such accounts will have on the kinds of proposals we are considering in these comments, but, unless the inflationary impact of such accounts contribute to such proposals as we eventually adopt, we will financially reward accounts whose only purpose is to effect censorship.
I certainly don't want that, and don't think anyone does.
It comes down to providing the right balance of incentives. At the moment passive income (vote selling, delegating to bots) is higher than contributing to the platform through curation. It is roughly three times higher. Adjusting curation rewards up to somewhere closer to passive income will provide incentive for users to be active. 50/50 split between authors and curators has been suggested. I am not convinced that will be sufficient to pull delegation from bots. I think 75% curation will be effective if combined with several other changes such as separate downvote pool and SBD included in payout to curators. Someone mentioned 100% curation rewards but I believe that would kill the incentive to create content.
A much higher curation reward will most likely increase the incentive to frontrun bots, thus reducing bot curation rewards. Frontrunners could be earning well over 100% of rewards per vote, which will be higher than any bot could offer. If bots are only getting 2/3 of the curation rewards and offering a positive ROI, they could be earning less than the 75% curation reward. The incentives to operate and delegate to bots will be greatly reduced.
Downvotes would be more effective as well as the downvote will reduce rewards to the curator. Curators are more likely to upvote content they feel will not be downvoted. This is another reason why downvotes should not penalise the downvoter. At the moment downvoting is close to non-existent. If downvotes were free, i.e. separate downvote pool, people would be more likely to use them.
Thanks for your comment. It is good to see another perspective on the matter. I think this response covers your other comment as well.
Actually, I would like curation rewards to be bigger too.
Would be nice if the price went up and everyone could see more value.
I also disagree, authors leave left and right because they realize its not as profitable as Steem makes itself appear. You have to remember that Steem's first and most important niche market is the internet's bloggers/vloggers/podcasters and artists of various kinds. Essentially, the key user is the blog owner of a wordpress blog, but Steem is already failing them because the Steem community does not get that they need to focus on this specific customer.
Wordpress bloggers are exactly who you should care about pleasing. This is why Engrave is probably the most under appreciated dark horse project on Steem, they understand the primary user of Steem: wordpress bloggers. This user is willing to buy some SP (not whale levels, but it adds up) in order to build a reputation and presence on Steem and they will be key customers for bid bots, causing an effective circulating internal economy. They build Steem's brand name by association and bring products and services to Steem.
I had a quick look at the Engrave website. It looks pretty interesting. I really think Steem is the land of opportunity. The biggest challenge is to fix the ecosystem to better align rewards with value added.
Posted using Partiko Android
It's a misconception to think only the author's are cut.
We all carry the load.
If you hold steem, you are paying proportionally to the 1% of total inflation to make further development possible.
Actually, this is more true than you may consider. The severity of the risk in taking from author rewards is that you're also taking away from all the businesses running frontends that utilize beneficiary rewards from author income. So this suggestion will hit dtube, dsound, steemblr, Engrave, eSteem and any other projects operating on the beneficiary model.
A 11-20% income drop for authors is the same for those businesses, which could be a deal breaker...
I am hesitant to tax witnesses to support development, although I am not certain that it is inappropriate either. Witnesses are somewhat akin to national defense metaphorically, as they are the mechanism that secures the blockchain against threats, foreign and domestic. Not only does taxing witnesses potentially obscure the impact of witness funding on blockchain security, and thus make it more difficult to effect security, but witnesses have demonstrable vested interest in certain types of development, and any financial incentive to compromise security for profit should be avoided at all costs.
Considerable funding is appropriated witnesses, and there should remain a stark and immutable separation between that funding and funding for development. Insofar as witnesses have stake, they also are taxed via their posts, comments, and votes, proportionally to the rest of the community. Further taxing our defense mechanism not only engenders the aforementioned hazards, but will effectively decrease the actual motivation provided them to effect our mutual defense.
Neither increasing the potential profitability of various developments to them non-proportionally, nor disincetivizing effecting the defense of the blockchain are acceptable proposals to me, although there is no reason to not consider witness rewards separately from funding development. As you may feel (as your comment seems to indicate) that witnesses are rewarded out of proportion to their contribution to the blockchain, such discussion may be appropriate.
Confusing development and security funding will not make such considerations easier.
agreed.. if the funding was done in proportion to each groups percentage of the inflation pool then it would still mean that the author pool pays the most BUT each group would contribute something ... seems to be a more equitable distribution for the good of the platform.
ditto ...Coming from witness rewards? Good Idea! We could use that number and take it from that. Since they gain the most from the platform.