The unscrupulous rich can already get richer in the short term sense just by upvoting shill posters and taking most or all of the author rewards. For a long time, there seemed to be endless scandal posts on that topic. Increasing the curation percentage will blunt that behavior.
I do think improving curation results on Steem will raise the value of Steem itself. Similarly, I believe making Steem power more valuable to Steem power holders will also lead to an increase in the value of Steem. So, I do think this will make long term investors richer in a proportionate manner to how much Steem they hold. But I also think it will like lead to more wealth for content producers who produce popular content even if they don't keep the Steem they get, since author and curation rewards are basically proportional to the market cap of Steem. In this scenario, the holders of Steem will definitely get more than those who don't hold it, but I think that's fair.
Well said. Increasing the value of the STEEM token may, ultimately, be the best way to spread more real value around to the most number of people. I also think it's important to make it valuable to power up STEEM because DPOS relies on powered up STEEM to make it expensive for someone to come in and take over enough witness spots to push through a fork the community doesn't want. It people aren't incentivized enough to hold Steem Power, that would mean it would theoretically be easier to attack the network (I track witness voting engagement on my monthly report which relates to that as well).
As a massive holder of Steem Power would say... hahah! ;)
I've never powered down since I've been here, so I would certainly like Steem Power holders to be rewarded more as well.
What are your thoughts about phasing something in over time instead of jumping right to 50/50?
Something I'd really love to see is more big data type analysis on the STEEM blockchain and how rewards are being distributed. Ideally, I'd love for us to have simulators where we could replay the blockchain under different rules and see how distributions change. Obviously, user behavior would change as well when the economic motivations change, but I still think it might give us some hints about how changes may impact things overall.
This is the first time I've heard a witness discuss this. I bring it up, and am brushed off. At least I know there is awareness of the issue amongst competent witnesses now. Thank you.
That would be amazing!
Is there a possibility that communities might be able to vary parameters? I expect that it will be done with SMT's.
Thanks!
I'll be looking at how rewards are being distributed, probably at some point in the next few days (although not with simulations yet!). I'm slowly trying to build up an overall picture of the Steem financial environment based on analysis of the blockchain data.
Wouldn't a more simple concept be to set the rewards at 50/50 and curators who upvote content would split the 50% rewards based on the time you found content, with a trickle down affect with late voters getting the least? And I agree that vote bots should be eliminated entirely. The voting process should be manual.
On the leased curating if one is leasing SP they should have rules so they are NOT upvoting just their own content or their friends, they should be required to find so many new content upvotes to prevent the abuse from some who are leasing SP. When I'm looking for new content I agree with @blocktrades, I can determine if it's good content in about 5 minutes.