Great, thx.
Now i think its time for you to market the DAO. I pinged you in a comment discussing the 50/50 on theycallmedan post.
I know you try to keep neutral and on the sidelines but the loudest members of the community, the curators are pushing hard on the 50/50 split that would paralize steem and take away any chance of the DAO having a great enough impact.
Please introduce your voice to the discussion.
Posted using Partiko Android
I actually agree with the restoration of the 50/50 split (50% to the author and 50% to the curators). I wrote a post about it a long time ago that describes why I thought it was bad: https://steemit.com/steem/@blocktrades/voting-abuse-and-ineffective-curation-a-proposal-for-blockchain-level-change
One change did come out of that post: previously, for the first 30 minutes of voting, even more of the rewards went to the author. This made it super-advantageous to immediately self-vote on all your posts (and get bidbots to do the same) as all the rewards on votes just after the post was published went to the author.
Steemit reduced that period down to 15 minutes (instead of the 5 minutes I suggested) and nullified rewards for that period on a gradually decreasing basis (I had suggested they split the rewards during that period as if they had voted at the same time to discourage immediate voting just to be the "first" to curate the post in order to get more curation rewards).
So you think a 50/50 split would be a better choice for the Steem platform then the author DAO related cut?
Im sorry, but after looking at the outcome of such a change i can only believe that all this would lead to is curator whales getting richer alongside vote sellers at the disadvantage of the content creators.
How are you going to fund the DAO if you go for 50/50? Will you cut even more from authors? Make it 25% authors 50% curators 25% DAO fund.
I know Ned wont allow that since he isnt driven by increased curation returns. But still... The DAO success depends on the author cut.
Posted using Partiko Android
We actually had 50/50 split for quite a while and it wasn't bad. In fact, from what I saw, many problems resulted from this supposed minor change that was made at the time.
It's important to keep in mind that all rewards in some sense come from stakeholders who put a value on steem by wanting to hold it. The current broken curation system makes Steem look less attractive to investors, lowering the value of steem, which directly lowers the amount of actual reward that authors receive (the amount distributed through the reward pool is a linear relationship to the market cap of steem).
In other words, I believe that returning back to 50/50 will actually increase the total value of rewards paid to authors, by helping to fix the curation problem that currently stunts steem's value in the market.
I cant agree with that. If vote selling services couldnt adjust to the 50/50 split i would have no problem with the change.
But im positive they can adjust to it which is why a author cut related to DAO funding is imo a better choice.
I think it depends on how you look at this, basically, if you make it 50:50, voting bots will have a harder time. 50:50 will probably make people vote on content they think will get higher votes later on. While this, on one side, definitely will lead to people vote on "big posts", if you consider incentives as OCD you might want to vote on very good "underdogs" too.
Sure. But isnt OCD voted content very scarce (especially tied with the blocktrades vote).
I know bots would struggle...
But how difficult would you say it would be for Minnowbooster vote selling service to adjust the vote buyer roi?
Since the Curation % would increase, wouldnt you just be able to reduce the vote price so upvote buyer would have at least a positive return on their purchase?
Yes, the price would have to decrease, but that would mean that the throughput of votes also decrease (less votes, less income for the bots, more time until the resulting steem power is powered down and returned to delegators). Besides that, vote selling might be less worth it and it might be more worth to manually vote on good content.
Why do you think less votes would be bought? Im inclined to think the exact opposite since after the 50/50 split and the price adjustment the demand for votes would increase since for a 110$ vote you would no longer have to pay 100 USD but rather something like 70-80USD.
Getting higher up the trending page would be cheaper.
I know bots would suffer but Smartsteem and Minnowbooster vote selling services i dont think would. They work quite differently then bots.