@timcliff I read the entire article and the only thing that worries me is the Increase of Curation Rewards. If I am not wrong the proposal is a 50/50 Split between Author and Curation Rewards but then where would the Beneficiary Rewards go. If we factor in the Beneficiary Rewards that almost all the Daaps take which is a Minimum of 10% then we get 40% Author Reward 50% Curation Reward and 10% Beneficiary Reward this will most certainly act as a catalyst for more users to Leave Steemit. Plus there would be a Possibility that people might stop using these Daaps that take Beneficiary Rewards and these Daaps might go Under.
I agree that with the increase in Curation Rewards people might go for more Curation but then again if you see this Differently f more People look for Curation there might not be a lot of Content to curate. Only a Handful of People will be Creating Content and all the STEEM will get accumulated on their accounts.
There is also the possibility of People creating different accounts to just Upvote each other thus keeping 100% of their Rewards in which case the Increase of Curation Rewards will do absolutely nothing other than steering away more people from this Platform.
I believe the 75/25 Split in favor of Author Reward is perfect for now as this gives a perfect incentive for both Authors and Curators to do their Jobs. I will agree that there are fewer Curators when compared to the number of Authors but then again I feel we also need Authors to Run this Platform.
There is almost no legitimate curation going on today. We have tons of authors creating good content, but very little in terms of content consumption. I hear your concerns, and they are valid - but I disagree that the 25/75 split that we have today is working.
To me, a layman, this kinda seems like a massive boost to those who just sell votes to their bots.
Replied to a similar comment here:
https://steemit.com/hf21/@timcliff/pt83ef
Hey again Tim, I've read that comment and failed to see how it addresses vote-selling, can you please be clearer here?
Sorry, I see now that your question is getting at something different..
The short answer is downvoting. Whether stakeholders will actually start to clean things up after the right incentives are in place remains to be seen, but the idea behind the package of changes is that we should hopefully see more stakeholders upvoting good curated content and downvoting more content that is just siphoning rewards without adding value.
I wish I was an optimist, but humans are greedy and lazy, if they can automate their profits they will... an utopic vision of people doing stuff pro-bono isn't the way. There's no incentive to manual curate as opposed to lay back, auto curate and just collect the bigger profits.
Why would auto curating necessarily provide more profits? You only earn money from curating if others vote after you, so there are a lot of situations where putting your curation on auto pilot will not lead to maximum profit.