If it were actually about the work from curators and authors, I would agree. But curators are generally also stakeholders.
What came first, the chicken or the egg? Curators, who are also stakeholders, might bring in the money, but it is the authors who generate content for the platform, and therefore generate value. Choosing to reduce their incentive to produce content could see content producers leave, or reduce the quantity or quality of content they make. With out authors to generate content, and therefore value, you'd find it hard to generate value through curation when content is harder to come by to begin with.
Exactly.
Content creators are more valuable. Curators can be replaced with automated software. Content creators have access to limitless content. Stake holders does not have access to limitless Tokens.
Anything 50/50 is packaged up communism that sounds good on paper. How many Socialist/Communist states are currently winning? It never works in reality. Nobody is talking to the real content creators so they have no clue what it takes to be one. Also no real stake holder has made any real arguments to what @lordbutterfly has said. Why 50/50 will fail. Because it will.
If you replace curators with automatic software who will buy STEEM? The price of STEEM will drop to zero and nobody will earn anything. STEEM needs both creators and investors (curators), therefore 50/50 is fair.
Curators are barely humans. Much curation is on auto. Soon AI Robots and Machine/Deep Learning will take over that. The algo on YouTube is already doing this.
Humans or Robots will buy Steem. Or anyone else that is interested. Hell I buy up all cheap Steem. I want more. It's the good stuff and the future. STEEM can't drop to Zero since I will buy all cheap STEEM. Same as Bitcoin can't drop to 0. I will buy. I'm not the only one that would buy cheap and sell high.
50/50 is not fair. Who did most work? The content creator. So you want to leech from them. That would be an unfair deal.