Sure, lovely thought exercise. The problem i see is that you are viewing this only from a curator perspective. Accounts on Steemit that could have any kind of meaningful impact on payouts are only a handful. Those 1%.
No matter the % increase in curation rewards , and increased incentive to curate, that wouldnt increase reward spread in any significant way. A few more whale accounts would become active but thats about it.
On the other hand that would drastically reduce the earning opportunity of small authors who have absolutely no benefit from increased % of curation rewards.
What i think would happen is this:
- Absolutely no change in self-voting. SP would be delegated to a proxy account and upvoted from there.
- A insignificant rise in numbers of large accounts curating
- overall drop-off of minnow population which would suffer greatly from this and wouldnt benefit in any way.
- @kevinwong earns more curation rewards. :D
maybe, although that's more about immediate effects you're projecting. economic equilibrium tends to take longer, hence my recent revisiting of this topic a year after hf equality. as curation communities outperform vote bidding communities, they'll become the new intermediaries for anyone to automate their votes on. and final note, there's no price on content and 25%, 50%, or 75% makes no difference - just that users are anchoring on what was available before. if voters have more incentives to give away votes, i wouldn't say that 50/50 would necessarily decrease earnings of authors, small or large.
Sure content has no price, but the monetary value of upvotes cant be disregarded. Take a 100$ post for example. Right now the spread would be 75$/25$... Moving to your proposal of 50/50, that would mean for me to make those 75$ with your 50/50 reward spread, id need a 50$ increase in payout.
Since those that can effect payouts significantly are only a handful, there is no way for me to even break even let alone have benefit. There just isnt enough of those with 100k SP or more.
Thats the immediate effect. You lose users and whales make a bit more from curation.
Alright. Long term effect? You cant base a success of a proposal on the off-chance that this will make a few more whales vote more. And thats the truth, only whale votes are really worth anything here. Me and tens of thousands like me have a minuscule effect on the economy, our impact is insignificant and this proposal makes that even more so by decreasing our growth.
You would be making whale votes worth less to the author and worth more to the whales.
Its not about voters. Not really. Minnows vote like crazy already. Its whale votes. And there just isnt enough of those for your proposal to work. If the wealth was distributed differently right now, maybe, but i really think this could potentially kill the community.
Sry but thats just my opinion.
"Long term, we are all dead".😉
By the time you feed the whales enough to increase their vote significantly so the minnow would arrive at the same potential payout there wont be those to upvote.