"50% curation will allow whales to cast huge votes that capture the lion's share" - So? A person who invests a lot should get a more significant share of the curation over those that invest less into steem, esp if the curator finds the viral post first, nothing wrong with that. And the large SP hodler upvoting benefits the author greatly.
- "on a post and then buy votes to scoop most of the curation." - If a whale upvoted a post then bought votes afterward wouldn't do anything. A person would have th buy the votes; second, vote buying isn't always instant so people can front run that vote and it could end up not being profitable under 50/50. Buying votes for a post after your upvote for the curation rewards is a waste of time and not fruitful.
thanks for getting back to me.
Users already sell votes and receive slightly less money than the vote is worth. A big stake holder in control of a upvote bot can already buy votes and make a profit. By throwing down a big upvote first they make even more.
It makes zero sense that curation is forced on us in the consensus layer of the platform. All curation should be optional; to be determined if the OP even wants to be curated in the first place (and for how much).
There is even a
allow_curation_rewardsboolean in the steemit api that doesn't do anything. It looks like the functionality to disable curation already exists but is just on standby.I've been here 16 months and I have still yet to even see the equation being used to calculate curation rewards. It alarms me that the way inflation is distributed is so unclear.
https://steemit.com/curation/@edicted/curation-and-sbd-are-broken
Who controls visibility of the posts? The frontends of Steem. Theoretically payout has nothing to do with visibility. The entire curation mechanic is nonsense. This is coming from someone who came up with idea for raising curation to 50% all on my own. I've backtracked on a lot of my old ideas, as they were uninformed.
I flag trash. You have been upvoted by trash. I have negated the vote from said trash.
Does this help?
https://steemit.com/curation/@miniature-tiger/an-illustrated-guide-to-curation-from-the-simple-to-the-complex-with-real-examples-from-past-posts-part-1
The reason for curation is token distribution. Without curation, Steem would be in the hands of a few people and never would have been distributed far and wide.
Bitcoin is distributed via miners with open access.
ETH started as ICO + POW; this was their token distribution model. They are going to PoS in which people lock up tokens to secure the network in order to get more tokens. While, not the best distribution model, since ETH has already been disturbed far and wide, they can maybe achieve a decentralized token distribution. However, unlike with DPOS (Steem's consensus model), token distribution isn't nearly as important to the functioning of the ecosystem because there is no stake based voting.
Now, enter DPOS. With DPOS token distribution becomes absolutely paramount, because tokens have voting rights for witnesses that run the blockchain. If you remove curation rewards what you are left with is a "shotgun DPOS" model which is basically a lazy PoS with voting rights.
Shotgun DPOS = Instead of passive token creation, you must manually upvote 10 times a day (vote selling/delegation to bidbots)
Removing curation rewards means removing the incentive to distribute the token and self-voting will be the 100% play in game theory.
A DPOS system with poor token distribution might as well be a centralized database. Sure, you get a lot of benefits of blockchain but the trust element goes out of the window.
Now, if you want to remove curation you would need to remove the upvote IMO because it becomes an obstacle. Just call it how you want it, remove author rewards and curation all together and have the inflation go to interest paid to SP stake hodlers. Make the staking rewards liquid so you can just donate to content creators you want. It is the same thing, forcing people to upvote with low curation rewards is just a janky system.