I'd recommend a 60/40 split rather than a 50/50. An adjusted curve could mean higher rewards to more content creators, but taking a 50% cut rather than a 75% cut could negate the benefits of those adjustments(especially to those at the bottom of the ladder).
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
The asymmetry of 75/25 (actually 88/12) means the benefit to curators is larger than the reduction to authors. Restoring a true 50/50 split from 88/12 would increase curation rewards for all voters (especially, given a flatter time curve, the more casual voters who vote late and express their content preferences, and even more so the smallest stakeholder who currently lose out by having their curation rewards round down to zero) by more than a factor of 4, while cutting rewards to authors by less than a factor of 2. The farther you get away from 50/50 the more then asymmetry means the gain is far larger than the pain.
Also of note, giving more money to curators would reduce author payouts as a whole. But it has the theoretical potential to increase the payout to good content by improving curation.
Also, there is a non-trivial amount of author rewards that are being converted under the table to curation rewards (by funding initiatives like SG with self voting). If curation rewards offered enough incentive in and of themselves, this (at least arguably) would no longer be necessary.
Excellent points