And personally it would encourage me to stay and wait out the 50/50 bs if I can get out immediately if it looks like happening.
If you could earn better returns as a stakeholder through curation, you would want to leave?
Why do you assume that things would be so horrible if invested users could earn more for investing? Wouldn’t this be attractive to those looking for better ROI, consequently bringing in a larger pool of users and buyers of STEEM? Or do you assume that most investors and social media users are bloggers who want to spend their time making posts that will likely go unread and unrewarded by the vast majority of users here and around the web?
The larger market is clearly content consumers, not creators. Making our blockchain more attractive for them is what will drive growth and positive price action...which, in turn, can greatly benefit content creators.
This fear of evenly splitting rewards between creators and curators for the contributions that both make is silly. It’s a symbiotic relationship. There’s no need to make it contentious by making it seem as if invested curators making better returns is evil but non-invested creators making money is righteous.
So if 50/50 rewards is scary and distasteful to you and you’d rather leave instead of adjust to a fairer system for everyone (especially those buying STEEM and making your posting rewards valuable in the first place), then that’s cool with me. You wouldn’t be the first person to rage-quit...then miss out on massive capital appreciation and regret their emotional decision.
Yep. I'll make a post with the math about this, but increasing curation rewards purely ruins stake distribution, and bad stake distribution is one of Steem's biggest problems.
If whales vote on orcas, and orcas vote on dolphins, and dolphins vote on minnows, and minnows vote on redfish, under 50/50 the redfish end up with 68.5% less stake after five years under 50/50 than they do under 75/25.
That's the opposite direction of a healthy system.
Are you assuming that there would be no new investment? Because that would be a terrible assumption to make with your maths.
It doesn't matter. But I know you don't value outgoing vote effectiveness and think that only returns exist, we've been through that before, so there's probably not a lot of point in continuing.
However if you'd like to collect some evidence on whether 50% curation really does drive voting, I outlined a method here.
Oh, is that right? What else can you tell me about what I value?
The issue here isn’t that it “drives voting” but that it further/better incentivizes investment/staking.
What is it that we want during growth phases? More investment and skin-in-the-game curating, or more collecting and dumping of the currencies by non-invested users looking for quick paydays?
And in the long-term, do we want a larger crowd of content consumers curating content and growing their investment? Or should we prefer a smaller crowd of content creators who publish uninteresting posts and never network?
We already have a lot of dissatisfied users in the latter group. It’s obvious to me why they have trouble making money - and it’s not because the economics don’t favor creators. I’d prefer growing the former group, which would eventually benefit creators even more, regardless of the general low quality of content that’s produced here.
Convince everyone who agrees with you to offer 50% curation on their posts through beneficiaries, then. It's that easy.