There's this issue and there's also the issue of conflating results of what is essentially an experiment. A major part of the reason to flatten the reward curve was to balance the rewards paid out to comments. But if the vote target is set to 10, then comments are going to be less likely to be voted on.
More powerful votes, with limited vote power and the vote slider in play, also increases the cognitive load on voting which should be kept to a minimum.
Exactly. This was also one of several reasons why the additional comment reward pool was opposed by myself and many others. We should not have to think about how much voting we're doing or how much weight we're giving to each vote, whether or power is being drained, how much it's being drained, etc. by being a normal social media user. Voting should be intuitive and almost thoughtless. A higher vote target allows for a relatively high number of votes, even from low-SP users (like new ones), without having to worry about the math behind it all and not seeing greatly diminished curation rewards because they're losing most of their voting power.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the 40-vote target right now. Again, I ask anyone from Steemit, Inc...
Why is this change necessary?
If something is not broken or in need of a better long-term solution, then there's no reason to change it. Doing it for the sake of "equality" is a BS argument that denies what social media actually is and what this platform is based on. And in addition, it violates the K.I.S.S. principle. What ever happened to that?
Then introduce the separate reward pool that would have solved that.
Huh? That's in the past. And would have been one more conflation in the last hard fork anyway. Splitting the reward pool was a very bad idea for Steem.
Disagree still. Frankly the only argument I've seen against it is "I'll get less money". And this current proposal was once in the past but it's back.
I included plenty of arguments in this post and none of them were "I'll get less money" https://steemit.com/steem/@pfunk/arguments-for-keeping-the-steem-reward-pool-whole
OK I remember that one actually. I interpret that as, here's a blank piece of paper. There are endless possibilities to what can be drawn on this page until somebody draws something. As a blank sheet the scope is endless. But to actually draw something useful would limit what it could be. So leave it blank?
Since comments are already treated differently to posts you could just as easily say restricting us both to the same pool limits the scopes of steem. And I would say that it does since there is far less incentive to comment than there is to shitpost.
The paper analogy doesn't really fit. Having a limitless scope doesn't prevent anything from being built on it.
The metaphor of a pool works better. If you're developing a comment/post agnostic app, which pool do you choose? And if those pools become even more and more subdivided which mini-hot-tub do you pick then?
Plus, if you're a person who owns stake in the network, you'd be disenfranchised from your own influence unless you were willing to double your curation "workload."
From what I've heard about the communities, it's going to be split into hottubs.
And the curation rewards for comments isn't necessary. Considering the rewards never incentivised curation that was good for the network, I think they can take a cut in favour of commenters. Investors would benefit more from an engaged community rewarded from comments that they would from circlejerk curation rewards.