If you respect my opinion at all, I would take a look at all communities, humans are humans.
Now, I am saying investors would delegate to curation projects, passively, because it would make them more money + help the platform at the same time. That is what I am saying. You say people will continue to sell votes even if that isn't the most profitable route, and that is untrue. Also, vote selling comes with risk, if you sell your vote to a person who spams BS and that gets downvoted, you lose what little curation rewards you would have gotten + get a bad rep. It is hard to find an argument that says 50/50 would not improve curation.
Im saying that it will still be the most profitable route.
Vote selling services will adjust their rates. They are businesses. Ofc they will adjust easily to this. Look at my first comment explaining it. This will make vote selling worse due to making it cheaper to get high value votes.
I have no agenda here to push. Im not a big earner or a big curator. I only care about the platform and this would hurt it greatly.
How would vote selling services make it cheaper? That is up to the person selling the vote. If a person is willing to sell a vote for cheap, then they are better off curating because they would make more money.
They wont be selling it cheap. They would be selling it for a lower amount of liquid funds but for more SP.
Whatever they would get from vote selling would offset the loss of being ineffective curators from selling votes.
They still get curation plus whatever they get from folks paying for votes meaning that their behavior would not change.
On the other hand, due to vote buyers having to pay less for the same $ amount on their post the demand might actually increase.
Vote selling services like MB and SS just adjust their rates. They just need to keep the return for vote buyer at 10-14% like it is now. That literally requires 5 minutes of work.
"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.
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??