You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Embracing Linear Equality on Steem: Unlearning the Sucker & Maximising the Arsehole in Me
It's a good point. As you say 80%+ curation along with some skill in voting could easily exceed the value of vote selling. Unfortunately there is very little consensus for high curation like that (though a small core of stakeholders in favor of it) and not even all that much consensus to raise curation, say, back to the original 50%.
At least in the HF20 development branch a change was made to actually peg curation rewards at 25% overall instead of having them decline (to probably 10% or so) due to early votes. So that's a small bit of movement in a possibly-favorable direction.
Hi @smooth, thanks for clarifying the peg to 25% curation - that isn't overly obvious in the @steemitblog Velocity post.
Also, is there a place where the collective can view consensus to proposals like 80/20% curation?
Cheers.
@steemitblog posts and comments on those posts are probably the best place to see discussion of these proposals. Sometimes witnesses and major stakeholders post their opinions on their own blogs as well.
ok cheers.
Yeah I found looking through the older @steemitblog's comments section pretty interesting, particularly around the rewards curve proposals!
Hi @smooth, could you point me to that commit that pegs the curation rewards to 25%? I only found that one returning the reverse auction part to the pool instead of to the author, but that alone shouldn't make it 25% if I understand it correctly?
Ugh, I think you are right. In the original discussion it was intended to avoid shifting funds from curators to authors but I can see now that it obviously wouldn't do that. Instead of shifting funds from curators to authors as the current rule does, it shifts funds from curators to both future authors and curators (so at least 75% of this will still go to authors). It is an improvement to curation payout but only a small one.
Thanks for the confirmation!