I've mentioned before...

When we go to the movies, we pay to be entertained. When we read books, we pay to enjoy a tale.

We do not get a cut of the profits. We don't wait at the ticket booth for a cut of the sales.

On Steemit, it's different. We DO reward the people who we entertain. It's the way to which we have become accustomed. Content creators were lured here with the hope of earning more here than other sites. Now that they're here, we want to deplete that and shame them into thinking they aren't worth it by calling them entitled, selfish and whiny for earning 30 cents on a post that might take 3 hours to create. Do authors deserve more than75% / less than 75%?

Honestly,
I have less concern about the amount that is changing for this proposal. I have more concern that the changes are going to be disproportionately spread over our population.

What is taken (42% of author rewards will be depleted if this proposal passes) will be up for grabs by curators. This would be awesome...if it was an opportunity to both make up for loss in author rewards and a proportionate benefit for curators. But we all know large stake holders will overwhelmingly benefit the most.

In essence, author rewards are going to be taken from content creators and scooped up by large accounts. Doubling 1 SPto 2 SP per month for small accounts will have very little effect on their wallets and the platform as a whole. Doubling 3000 SP to 6000SP per month..I think you see my point.

Small accounts do not have the stake to make up for the loss in author rewards. I've already shown this in previous posts. Specifically because large accounts take the lion's share of the curation rewards that are now being doubled.

Overall, small accounts will at least initially lose significantly while large accounts benefit significantly.

"Hope that it changes"... is great. But unpredictable.

and also... based on human behavior, that we once again "hope" will be for the good of one another.

We are taking more money from small accounts and honestly expect them to work harder, longer, and try to stand out...

While curators (specifically large accounts) get double for adding nothing to the mix. They will do the same thing on Tuesday that they did on Monday... But after HF21- they will make more.

Please dont say "then people can curate more". I've given my account as an example. But mine doesn't express how dire it is for people with smaller accounts than me. Even with mine...I was already curating twice as much as I should have, depleting my voting power and value of my vote... If I curated more, it wouldn't replace what I've lost.

Not only that, I've already shown that the people who are benefitting directly from this proposal are voting on thus while the majority of accounts are on the losing side.

That is the grotesque unfairness you are needing pointed out.

It is a glaring conflict of interest.

Back to curators, if they are entertained, enjoy our thoughts, participate in our contests, view our photos, watch our videos.... They upvote.

That is their appreciation/approval of the content.

And then they get a portion of the proceeds.

There activity is already rewarded

Witnesses work hard to make this platform work. We dont get a cut of their work. We benefit when they do their work well.

Content creators create content for themselves, for the community and for the benefit of the platform. We benefit when they do their work well. We also get a cut of their work as a bonus and a motivation to curate more.

To curate better? No. To curate for financial gain. That's the nature of steemit. Most people curate three ways. For friends, for unknown good content, or for financial gain.

You will never stop people from voting for their friends.

I believe that there will be less good content...why? Because people feel unappreciated and disposable.

The only thing that remains is curating for financial gain, and people are already trying to figure out ways to regain the rewards that are being lost and I can guarantee you it has nothing to do with good content. It has to do with self-voting and following big accounts, timed right on autovote.

How does that solve the issue?

Also, if a whale gives a 100% upvote for a trash post vs a quality post... What is their motivation in this proposal for upvoting quality vs trash?

What is their motivation in this proposal for voting for others instead of themselves?

The ones who have the most influence (and make the most curation rewards) have absolutely no motivation to use their votes for quality.

Actually... This proposal STILL allows for whales to abuse their votes if they want to.

And what is our recourse? Some free downvotes to disagree? Seriously? How many Plankton, minnows or dolphins do you know that want to go head to head with a whale and put a target on their back with a downvote?

Once again, the only policing that will happen will be on the smaller accounts, stirring up negativity and spiteful behavior.

"Thank you for that completely objective downvote. I appreciate your right to distribute the rewards away from my post. Have a wonderful day!"

That will not be heard on Steemit. Ever.

I appreciate that investors invested their money. Without them, this site would not be.

I appreciate that good content creators write things that entertain us. Without them, this site would not be.

I appreciate that good curators use their votes to lift good content. Without them, this site would not be.

No one is entitled to a disproportionate redistribution of benefits, or should be punished with a disproportionate redistribution of risk.

Spread it out evenly and you would have less of an argument from me.

If they took the 50/50 off this proposal for now, and made it a singular discussion.. and allowed for some compromise... I think that would be wise.

Hope that more fully explains this grotesque unfairness that you were asking to be revealed.

Investors (meaning anyone who has invested in steem) make money when steem makes money.
Instead of being so focused on just getting them more money, I would love to see us ALL be willing to take cuts that are proportionate to our class so that we can ALL enjoy the benefits of growing the platform.

*Wrote this on my phone...apologize for any inconsistency in my thoughts... I had to scroll around a little lolol

Thanks for reading and responding. We don't have to agree, but I appreciate the willingness to discuss.

(P.s. I don't think authors have it bad at all right now... I accepted what I made for what I loved to give.)