I, like you am just an ordinary person. I do not believe that 50/50 will solve anything. I also do not believe we have very many real curators. We have people wanting to make a quick buck off the back and work of others. (I am actually fine with that when it comes to steem). I think people would be very hard pressed to find very many post that get voted on at day three of being posted. Most post votes are done by so called curators between 13 and 17 minutes of a post. That is not curation-that is looking to make a buck off of someone else's work - and I am fine with that being as it is an automated system.
If it should be decided to go with a 50/50 split because of curation efforts then the start time of the curation payout should be randomized. That will show me they really are concerned about the curation effort and not about the bottom dollar. A randomized start time of curation payout would mean simply that just because you voted for a post during the sweet spot (13-17 mins), does not guarantee you a better curation reward than someone who voted for the post on day 3 hour 17 minute 23.
No other change to the formulation needed. Just the start time of the post curation payout. Anything less than a randomization of the start time just means it is about the money and not the content.
I haven't thought about having a randomized start time like you mentioned, but sure. I wouldn't mind. However, people are here for the money. None will ever be able to convince me anything else.
99.5% of the users here are not crypto experts. They are not blockchain experts. They are Facebook, Twitter and Instagram users. They are average users and they are here to make money.
That is and will always be the number one priority. The community-aspect, making new friends etc. That comes further down the road. Why would the average Bob want new friends on a platform he doesn't even understand? Bob has friends on Facebook... This is why it's crucial for people to reward, encourage and educate newcomers. We want them to stay.
We don't have many manual curators. Most people are either selling votes or have set up auto-votes. That gives them a more or less passive income which is bad for STEEM. We need active people, because without active people, there will be no content to curate and earn from.
However, most "curators", who actually have impact on the rewards, are "investors". I say "investors" because some of them have bought stake and others have mined/earned it. And that's not the point I'm trying to make...
What matters is, that these "curators" makes more money by selling their votes. Some of them bought Steem when the price was higher than today, so they are trying to cover their losses. Others are doing this just to empower themselves and to get even richer. But that's also the whole point of being an investor. You invest. You risk money and hope make profit.
However, with a 50/50 split, curators would make less from selling votes, and it would encourage people to manually curate again. Or at least to put a bunch of authors on auto, to maximize the curation rewards. This is also one of the reasons I wasn't as convinced as @theycallmedan for instance. I'm not sure about this whole putting people on auto-thing...
It sounds like it would become a massive circle-jerk instead of more manual curating... But it's also something I would like to try. I wouldn't mind a 50/50 split, to see how things develop.
One thing is crystal clear though... People are here to earn money, and most people are more interested to grow their own accounts than to "spread the wealth" and empower others.
Yep, to all, and I do not disagree with the making of a buck by anyone on steem blockchain, that is why most came. The concept of curation is a nice one, but it still all boils down to making money for the investors, which everyone on steem blockchain is whether they see themselves as one or not. I myself just do not think they want the 50/50 split for altruistic reasons which is what those that want it seem to be trying to convince people of.
For now manual is the way I vote, that may change, it may not, time will tell.
This is why I was (still am) a bit skeptical too. 50/50 seems to be the perfect option for the rich to get even richer, at the expense of the poor...
But @theycallmedan have sort of managed to convince me that it would be the best option for the platform in itself.
@bashadow, I think many of the real curators around here can be found on Asher's Curation and Engagement Leagues.
I like the idea of random timing for the curation... of course, it would make all the people who see this as a giant "cash grab" squeal and protest.
=^..^=
Yes, I have been tracking my progress through Asher's leagues. People in the league may vote a wider day stance than most, but I still think there would be very few that vote on a post that is more than 2 days old. I am sure the average post age vote, would be higher for league members than for most that other curation type groups.