Those who create content and do more work will get less, while those who do no work and sell their votes will get more. Does that seem right?
No, it doesn't as I have been vocal about on a few posts i have seen recently on this. I spend 10-20 hours research on many of my posts, and the idea that those reading it should get the same amount as I is insane. I sometimes sift through a lot of lies and crap to find what I believe to be credible sources. I can only imagine what artists, musicians and such can think of this, the idea that those enjoying their talent deserves the same cut as they do for enjoying their talent.
I like your idea, sadly the fact is this is a thinly veiled move to grab more of the pool by those who have been profiting from the vote bots and seen the downturn due to lower valuation (and for awhile no SBD being printed). They don't seem to understand (or maybe just don't care) that most here make jack on curation due to dust, and using Jethro math Not times NOT is NOT.
Under this proposal, I stand to lose more from one post than I would gain from doubling curation rewards. And unlike many here, i love the idea of a gifting economy and since being here have donated roughly 20% of my earnings. The proposed loss would evaporate that from my abilities here, as I would like some left for me after paying the taxes next year on my earnings here. Greedy people gonna greed though, no matter the cost to others.
Did you notice that they want to push the idea of flagging, yet I still here crickets about adding the ability to downvote witnesses. Wonder of that would be a game changer for those who are witnesses yet don't get the large votes as those entrenched in the top get?
Promoting more flagging, and rewarding it, is a horrible idea as far as I'm converned. Anyone can flag others and get paid to do it. It's a recipe for disaster that feeds trolls and bullies. I don't agree with downvoting witnesses either. Anyone with lots of SP can have a grudge and effectively remove someone else in the lower ranks from being a witness at all.
I think this way of re-allocating rewards for posts that get upvoted from vote buying by vote sellers is a good way to get everyone else who doesn't rewarded. There are just some technical issue with implementing it, like determining who is a vote seller or bidbot to annul the rewards on a post and re-allocate it to the reward pool instead.
I too am not a fan of the flagging ( I have only used it on one account that was trolling both Family Protection and Informationwar), however I notice that they are good with it as long as it does not hit them where it hurts.
This feels to be about rewarding those with the highest stake (the top witnesses and their supporters) at the expense of the lower and middle class. What person of talent or person who researches deserves the same share of the rewards. I will use you as an example. You are a researcher/experimenter. No way do any of us (myself included) deserve the same cut you get % for benefiting from your time and effort. We already benefit from the 25%, and we benefit as well from your sifting and presenting your conclusions.
I would like to think the top witnesses would consider your idea if they think there is a problem here greater than their current decreased bidbot profits. However, it feels to me that is really where they and their largest supporters are seeing the problem that needs corrected.
That still requires a centralized account to do the work, and a centralized team to manage it, with delegated power from accounts that can be traced and retaliated against. The changes I would like to see are coded in and don't require anyone doing anything. The community is an ideal I like, but it isn't as fool proof as a coded change that just takes care of it all.
I don't know any of the top witnesses to know the motivations and can only base my conclusions on the affect the proposed 50/50 idea would have on my account and those I follow who have not been as fortunate as myself in finding support. It seems obvious to me that this would increase the take of those at the upper scale at the expense of those at the lower end. Perhaps it is not so obvious to those at the upper end, however I find it more credible that they do know it would increase their share of the pool and at whose expense it would be at. I saw another user (@glenalbrethsen) make a comment that summed up my feelings on this proposed reward cut they would have me receive.
As for the flagging, I will admit I have never been much of a flagger, only doing it to one person who has a grudge against canadiancoconut and familyprotection who couldn't stop trolling month after month. I will admit I am in a bubble here, having found my favorites for my feed and finding new people of interest from their comment sections. Which is how I found you as well. When I log in, it is more of a mind to read posts that interest me, curate them and when I am ready to post after researching to do that as well. And to support causes that I align with. I don't see myself changing this approach regardless of any proposed changes to the flagging system. I have enough people in my life who I oppose to desire seeking them out here. For me, there are enough blessings here to spend my time on. You being one of them. I appreciate your knowledge, even though at times it falls far into my ignorance zone. You are one I wish would post more on subjects as you have much you could share that deserve light stronger than in comment sections. You are one of the brightest I have encountered here on the platform.
You prefer a community flagging effort that is managed by a centralized off-chain dedicated team, than an automated in-chain algorithm that determines who is a bidbot and removing rewards for authors that get voted by them? Anyone who delegates to a flag account, will be known, and they can have retaliation applied to them. Applying a change to the code takes care of it without anyone needing to put a target on their back.