Updated, added more counter-arguments:
I agree with most of what you're saying.
I’m very interested in the 50% curation, but I’m also concerned it’s just funneling more rewards to those who already have a lot of Steem Power.
I think this is a non-problem. All SP users would want to accumulate anyway, so why does it make a difference with a lot of SP? The rich will surely get richer regardless, if they don't waste their potential. The problem is getting voter's self-maximisation actions align with the behaviour that ought to be rewarded on the platform, which is curation / distribution / supporting curation services. The action has to be almost synonymous with SP accumulation, it's not a bad thing. I think with this, even the likes of @freedom, @haejin, @trafalgar will start to use their votes for the greater good.
Unless we adjust how curation rewards work, those with little Steem Power would earn very little rewards via curation so how will they ever get ahead, even if their content is great and begins to get voted on?
They can work for curation groups like @curie which has already established a decent workflow that adds to the platform that can be replicated. Also, with a curation economy actually going on, more valuable contributions will likely get rewarded.
Re: about flags:-
Reddit has downvotes even for the end of retaliation, by the way. It's something users will need to adapt to. It's likely a feature that adds more to the platform rather than the other way around, imo.
Part of me still thinks the problems here are psychological. If huge whales are trying to extract too much value instead of using the value they already have to protect and grow the collaborative commons we have here, then they essentially destroy their own provisions. If, instead, they thought in terms of rational, long term value creation (instead of irrational, short-term value extraction), we might all benefit more.
This part I'll be disagreeing. Technology leads society leads technology, ad infinitum. The tech is making those being "rational" lose out too much, it's hard to tell people to change and there are no signs of users following what is considered the better course of action for the long-term. So the tech needs to enable profit-maximisation behaviour in better directions, which I think could be fixed as per the proposal. I think traf's explanations are very good here and it actually changed my mind. Like if Steem's econs is actually the equivalent of flying too close or too far away from the sun, then we're just fighting against all odds to make things work. Traf may not be making such an irrational move after all, since it's a problem that will likely be woken up to and addressed eventually at some point for a good dump, if the platform is still in public interest..
Maybe they are right. I still think much of the value we see here is because of people who choose not to exploit, even if given the opportunity to do so.
This is right of course, but doesn't address the problem. They're absolutely right.. what you've just said is almost equivalent as saying "it's okay, leak Steem's treasury to the worst behaviours on the platform.. it's okay, we moral upstanding people will take the hit until they go away.. somehow.."
Again, those taking a stand is currently getting "taxed" by the worst behaviours on the platform. On equal grounds, if SP accumulation points per month for those taking a stand and actually contributing to the network is only +100 points / month, while those exploiting are getting +1000 points / month. In 10 months, the difference is 9000 points. This is the chasm we're facing at the moment.. and good news is that it can likely be fixed, as proposed.
I also like the "flying too close to the sun" analogy. You make a lot of great points here, and I agree with them all. I do think value creation should be the focus AND those with a disproportionate amount of STEEM should individually restrain themselves from extracting too much value. This is the part that causes problems from a mentality standpoint. If the largest whales were to take the lion-share of curation rewards under a new economic system, we'd have the same problem again, just a different flavor. I agree, things can be improved, but there will always be "the problem" of wealth extraction until we think in terms of a collaborative commons and not in terms of a staking coin for maximizing wealth extraction.
Some more thoughts on this (which I think you've already seen): An Argument for Long-Term Rational Self-Interest Versus Short-Term Irrational Value Extraction. When people say no one is taking steps to add value instead of extracting value, I point to my wallet and say, "Really? No one?" I think many are, they just do it quietly. I'm happy with the amount of value provided to me via STEEM, and I don't need to use bidbots or self-voting to extract further value. That said, I also agree more can and should be done to protect the commons and disincentivize others from extracting too much from it.
Thanks for the response! Yup we're converging on something here @lukestokes :).
Now we're seeing value adding services popping up all over Steem. Their existence will likely have a much higher chance of greatly accelerating improvements on the network if those with a disproportionate amount of STEEM find a great reason to use them. The best bet is to encourage that action is the have a result that doesn't lose out in the order of 600-1000% compared to self-voting/vote-trading. 300% may still be too much of a difference to trigger a new behavioural equilibrium, a mere 50-100% difference in results may be possible for the revolution that we need. The problem is that value-adding endeavours are falling back by the order of 600-1000% difference.
I understand that we can promote the culture, but there are others that just want to maximise anyway. The wide gap is causing more and more to join the race, "succumb to the dark side". If the gap is not as wide, maybe it'll be more bearable for most users to do it for the greater good, so to speak. I suspect maybe you aren't "feeling it" because you're a top witness :D it's a different kind of skin-in-the-game..
Check out this video, it's very interesting, showing the difference between aspirations and actions..
Finally, in a voice that might get listened to,...
It's a mistake. The economy has to be designed in such a way that it levels the profitability between vote trading and curation activities, which bridges the gap and has the effect of individuals distributing while at the same time sufficiently accumulating SP.
Or, the community could enforce its own standards.
I think its better that we control ourselves rather than appeal to authority to do it for us.
(If it was up to me the bots would require rewards to be declined.)
The community can't really enforce its own standards given the current economic rules. This is grossly unfair and unsustainable.
For example, during the whale experiment abit and I were using our valuable vote power primarily to downvote non-complying whales, while others including other whales were using their vote power to earn rewards (as long as they stayed below the whale experiment limit). Abit and I were happy to do that for a while in the name of an experiment but would we continue to do it for years? Forever? I think not.
We never asked for one, but I think it is telling that we never received a single donation or even a token of thanks for that experiment.
Everyone wants a better Steem, but few are individually willing to pay for it.
The economic changes are needed to create a fair and sustainable way to accomplish this. Community enforcing its own rules without the right economic structure behind it isn't that.
Yes, i agree, simply downvoting all the time does get old.
I may not have said so at the time, but steemflagrewards has shown that crowd sourcing abuse fighting is going to need to persist.
I think the reason that you didnt get alot of support is because we were too new, too few, and stinc's air of righteousness hadn't as many dents in it.
I bet more than a few troops rally to your side if you did it again.
Not that their collective 21.39stu in votes could do much for you, even after a trippling of vote values, but you'd win the popular vote.
I agree that unless the largest accounts take their thumb off the scales we will be little more than a sycophant boys club.
Have you looked at steemua?
Talk about skinning the newbs to enrich the already rich.
Smdh.
If you did it again, what would you set the limit at given today's price?
steemua? Have not seen.
If you did it again, what would you set the limit at given today's price? Doesn't really apply because the goal was to reduce the extreme superlinear so that smaller accounts have some say rather than literally none at all. With linear we have that already. The problems today are different and more pervasive.