If you approached what I had mentioned with something like an SMT, you end up turning a market of potential billions into millions of tiny markets of thousands and each individual market then struggles unnecessarily.
Similar to how a massive retail store that sells everything makes far more money than all those individual shops downtown on the fancy street.
An SMT would be ideal for big name band or something with a dedicated fan base that already purchases everything that band (or author, or anything) puts out on the market. This is not the place or conversation for me to explain the details of that though.
Have a look at tribe tokens. Each one struggles because they've not tapped into the consumer driven business model, yet each one provides something that is intended to attract consumers. It's like planting apple trees and allowing the apples to rot because you're not interested in selling them.
Every single content creator here can tell you it's not the rewards they're lacking, it's the market of consumers they don't have a chance to tap into. Bring those consumers and the creators will earn more, along with the investors who just want to sit on the sidelines earning percentages.
I'd use that savings account to offer investors a chance to hold and earn a percentage without contributing, while leaving the current Hive power business model intact, with options to tweak percentages down the road. There could come a time when in order to reward consumers, the content creator might have to take something like a 10 percent cut, but still do really well, because they have tens of thousands of consumers voting/tipping their contributions.
I get your argument, but you are missing something. It is possible to create an SMT that is an exact replica of the current Hive token. Inflation, distribution, upvoting, etc... It can even be improved by removing the inflation to witnesses and the SPS and direct it all towards content creators.
This SMT can then be used on ALL the communities. Why set up barriers? The only way this SMT won't be used within a certain community is if the community specifically doesn't want that (unlikely).
Therefore, you still have a massive market. Not small communities. Using SMTs only as belonging to a specific community is very narrow. They can be used for the whole network.
That way, the main Hive token will be designed for investors and RC credits, because the value proposition this chain brings is indeed RCs. At the same time, there will be a general-purpose SMT working across all communities with the exact properties of the current system, or even improved properties for content curation. Hell, you can even try to design your own currency to achieve the best system possible.
I don't see how anything will be lost that way. If you believe that your vision of Hive geared towards content creators will capture more value in the long term than you will see that in the price. The price of the SMT for curation will be higher than the price of the main token.
I personally see RCs as the main value capture, because as the number of accounts and transactions grow on the chain, even if it's for content creation, RCs will become scarce and large holders will have to delegate it to others who need it.
In any case, both systems can coexist using separate tokens. If you combine them in a single token (what we have now), you end up with endless conflicts and no one knows what to optimize for since opinions will naturally be divided.
Edit - Important to note, you do not need to chose between the main token and the SMT, at least in the beginning. Since the curation SMT would start with the same distribution as the current Hive token, all of us already have the exact same voting power. Once you earn rewards for content creation, yes, you would have to choose between keeping it in the SMT or selling it for the main Hive token.
But then who buys Hive, and why? If it's just for RC's then I think only those who need RC's would purchase it, and it would be the bare minimum. And once there's no need to buy more, how do yo continue to create demand? It would be that SMT creating that demand. So this is just adding unnecessary steps and barriers in my mind.
I don't fully disagree with you and know where you thought process is coming from. I totally get it.
But I just watched those Tribes try this very thing. I can't say I was too impressed, but not fully disappointed either.
Too many markets, too many options. Not enough consumers.
If RC is being handed out by means of delegation, that means no new money is coming in the door. Some might go to a few stakeholders, which they'll sell. Only need a small handful of big accounts to provide plenty of RC. So that's a tiny market. And I don't really see how having a landlord while utilizing products this chain has to offer would be appealing to your average consumer. That all sounds ridiculous to me. It makes no sense, especially when there's already a proven business model sitting directly under everyone's nose.
There's tremendous value in content. Arts and entertainment, information. These things generate billions annually. Everything required is already in place it just needs to be embraced. These profiteers have been squandering the potential for years. They don't know what business they're in.