"They wont be selling it cheap. They would be selling it for a lower amount of liquid funds but for more SP." - how does this even work? Please give me an example if you don't mind.
First, a vote seller is a middle man, not a market maker.
Vote selling platforms take a small cut from the deal; there is no way they can give the vote buyer a better deal, even if they gave 100% of the profit back. Also, most vote sellers already give 100% of the curation rewards back to the seller, which are shit because vote selling gives the worst curation rewards possible.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Sure, they are a middle man, but % profit is set by them. All that would happen is a price adjustment. Liquid funds gained by vote sellers would be reduced and a new balance achieved.
My point is that those that dont want to curate will not curate since vote selling is still the best option for them.
By continuing to vote sell they would still get some liquid funds + some curation and that is a far better deal for them because it requires no work whatsoever.
If we establish that nothing will change and that the passive whales will always take the path of least effort then what you just did is completely wreck the content creator scene.
We know that Steemit/Dtube/etc. traffic and the community size depends on the price of Steem. If you cut author earnings by 25% and nothing changes for the better for the author that could wreak havoc on the community.
Is that worth the risk when there are better options??