why not reduce curation rewards according to how much curation reward was payed in the last time period lets say 30 days to this user.
I would suggest to use this formula:
NewCurationReward = CurationReward *
(AverageCurationReward + AverageCurationReward) / (CuratonReward + AverageCurationReward)
AverageCurationReward = Sum CurationReward of all people that got more then 100 dollar through blogging / Count(of all people that got more then 100 dollar through blogging)
With this in place curating a new person would give double the curation reward. The CurationReward of curating a user that got twice the curation reward in the last 30 days will be reduced to 2/3.
Agreed. Curators that find gems among dirt should be rewarded more than the curators begging at the feet of famous bloggers. In order to maximize the benefit curators provide to the community, incentives need to align with the amount of information they add to the system. Voting on nobodies is high risk, and needs equivalently high reward to compensate. It seems to me curation rewards should be inversely weighted to the average expected performance of the poster. The result being curators being rewarded half as much when the poster is twice as successful. Right now steemit is like a record company where all of the talent scouts are following the labels most famous bands like groupies instead of looking for up and coming artists.
The problem I see is people will try to post more or less in function of what they would earn. This could have a negative effect on bloggers wanting to have some kind of daily news blog.
if they are well known bloggers they would still have enough followers that vote for them.
getting curation reward is not relevant for most of the users, its mainly relevant for whales and maybe delphines.
The reson for getting curation reward should be for the work to spot good new content and not for voting on bloggers that so or so get a lot of payout.