The real question is: why? Curation needs to be eliminated. Why is Steemit Inc dicking around wasting time changing the algorithm when it would be completely deleted?
This has been a known fact since vote-buying became common practice. Curation means nothing when votes can be bought.
I will continue to push towards eliminating curation in it's current form and transitioning to a system where rebloggers get the reward.
To give whales the power of curation is to assume that whales are better at judging content than someone else with less stake. What an asinine assumption!
Why does curation need to be removed? People would be less motivated to even vote at all :P Vote buying does make it less a measure of what is actually valued indeed. Only the pure who care to value content would continue without curation rewards, so I'm not against it :) The reason SP was used was because of Sybil attacks and greatly gaming the system otherwise. I hate the concentration of power involved though, I've been vocal against it in the past.
Let's say you are a whale with a $20 upvote. Let's also say you run a vote buying/selling service. You can upvote yourself for $20, and you can buy votes from your own service. The majority of the curation for the bought votes will flow into your pocket, and you can charge a premium for your service as well, paying vote sellers 85 cents on the dollar.
The more stake someone has, the easier it is to manipulate the mechanics of curation.
I don't understand the reasoning behind, "People would be less motivated to even vote." It makes no sense. Why would they be upvoting other people at all then? Why not just upvote yourself if all you care about is the reward? How is 25% curation any different than simply upvoting yourself once every 4 votes?
Financially, curation is different in that the 25% could be 25% of much more than you could get from upvoting yourself.
Good catch. Yes, the curation mechanic creates a kind of lottery where you can actually make more money than a full vote. However, I have tested it, and at my voting strength, I barley make more than a full vote on posts that get vote botted up to $1000.
The real way to capture curation rewards is to have massive stake. If you are a whale you can capture the lion's share. I think this is dumb, because anyone can see how much a post is paying out. Whales have little curation intensive to upvote posts that already have upvotes.
Also, what is curation? Curation means you get paid to sift through bad content to bring the good content to light. Literally anyone could be doing this, but the way the system is rigged only whales get paid for it. Why does Steem think that whales are better curators than plankton?
I maintain that the real way curation should work is through resteems. If you upvote a post because you clicked on a resteem, the person who resteemed that content should get the curation reward. This makes way more sense.
I've seen the motivations for much voting driven by curation rewards, not by the content itself. Not to say it's all that way. It would be interesting to see how behavior changes on the platform with no more curation rewards. I'd like to see it.
!popcorn for the show!
Posted using Partiko Android