but the big posts should get more benefit while the smaller posts get less, which is a big part of the problem.
I've never modelled the reward pool but in my head these impacts are proportional. So a high SP holder who is self-upvoting at time zero and gaining few other votes will lose around 25% of their post value under the HF20 changes. They will gain back a percentage over time due to the funds returned to the reward pool, something like the difference between 25% and the 18% overall curation stat, but much less than they are losing. I'm not convinced it's as simple and big posts v small posts.
I don't see anything in there that would allow a post to be made without regular curation rewards, though.
If you look at steemd there's a flag setting the curation rewards to zero. On most posts this flag is set to true.
Now how this works exactly, I'm not sure. I'm hoping the curation rewards aren't just being burned, although that would be weird. I'll try to find some more info.
Interesting, SBE doesn't show that flag. The post did pay out 100% to the author, it didn't lose anything to burning, so that's not what's happening.
If we can just remove curation from our posts without telling anyone that's kind of a big deal. On the other hand the devs could just use that to default to no curation on comments and kill one of the worst side effects of the change.
Sorry! Having spoken to @crokkon and @espoem and some people at Utopian the answer is that, whilst there are no curation rewards on the post, the author doesn't benefit. The curation rewards are simply not paid out (so they stay in the pool I guess). Not what I thought after all.
The thinking is that it's not possible to give 100% to the author under HF20, even if you are willing to sacrifice your curation rewards. So you're right, that is a step backwards.
.