Why should curators make more? They are already making 25% on work that they did not create.
I don’t understand why this is such a contentious issue.
Authors currently receive 75% of the total post reward. That’s for one single person.
Curators receive a maximum of 25% of the total post reward. That’s divided between all of its curators, which often numbers in the hundreds - and in the future (potentially) could regularly be in the thousands.
Is it really so unfair for one user to receive 75% of rewards and hundreds or thousands of others to split the remaining 25%? Would it be so absurdly unfair for one person to receive 50% while the other hundreds or thousands split the other 50%?
Also - is it so ridiculously unfair to entice staking and reward stakeholders for the STEEM that they power up? To better incentivize and reward them for assuming additional risk? Is it so unfair to give authors a risk-free 50% split of any rewards they receive, thanks in large part to the people who have bought or held STEEM, powered it up, and upvoted the author’s content?
Where is this grotesque unfairness? And which group is actually being treated unfairly?
For the life of me, I can’t figure out why this is where so many people are making their stand. Do we not want to entice more people to assume risk by purchasing STEEM and powering it up - or to at least stop dumping so much of it? Are we content with the unsustainable reward giveaways to anyone who shows up and posts the kind of stuff that can be and is found anywhere else on social media?
When are authors going to recognize that people buying STEEM and/or powering up are the ones who actually make it possible for these authors to cash out their blogging profits in order to “make a living?” When will authors stop vilifying risk-taking stakeholders for seeking profits while those same authors complain about their own risk-free profit potential?
There are other battles to fight and other more consequential protocol changes and actions/behavior that have affected both authors and curators here. Why don’t we address those issues instead of always arguing about how “bad” authors have it?