100% agree. Such fundamental changes should be automatically rolled back after a predefined time period, UNLESS the community votes to keep it.
I also think trafs logic is not correct. In my opinion, it only benefits the whales, everyone else loses influence, income, and incentives to post because the curators get a bigger share. 50/50 is nuts...
Whales can only benefit from curation if they own enough Steempower. Which is what this platform needs - more reasons for stakeholders to buy STEEM & power-it up, instead of selling since it's not really needed anyway (due to the implementation of delegations & co.)
Delegation is like 30% ROI. Good curation is 100+% ROI which is a HUGE difference.
There is proof regarding your assertions, and it demonstrably contradicts them. Today CMC reports we are at 63, and have slid ~30 positions since I got here. Due to your exact recommendations. Your disingenuity regarding what is good for Steem is inexorable and provable, as your personal extraction of the wealth of the community has done the opposite.
I recommend to the community that whatever you propose, we do the opposite. Every tap of your keyboard is intended to increase your extraction of the wealth of the community. That is contrary to the interests of the community.
We need to create incentives that will financially encourage you to invest in Steem for dividends (since you'll never await capital gains) that increase the value of Steem and produce capital gains, or watch you extract that last bit of wealth that's worth your time, and witness the death of our community.
Please let me know when you abandon Steem, so I can turn the lights off when it dies.
Think this may be a little harsh but I understand.
The TRW has helped somewhat in helping us fighting abuse but services like his have contributed to many a bad actor getting influence and/or cashing out our tokens at a lower and lower price
I am glad to coordinate with them to remove rewards from abuse but it is incredibly rare we get unvotes on abuse which frustrates the hell out of me.
The one thing I am looking forward to is MIRA. We can then run witnesses on consumer hardware (not sure of the impact on full rpc nodes) and hit the reset button on distribution. (We can out a fork in it.)
Too much influence is in the wrong hands to be honest. Folks, willing to sacrifice good for gain by serving the lazy and vain.
Btw what's you do to piss off ngc? Looks like you are on auto flag. That's a case against free downvotes if I ever saw it.
I also greatly anticipate MIRA because I am a huge advocate of decentralization, and reducing the cost of plying nodes promises to advance that cause on behalf of Steem.
I've tried to advance a basic concept of investment: capital gains is the reward for increasing the value of the investment vehicle. Extracting rewards does the opposite and is contrary to basic investment principles and the vision of a social network that enables people to be rewarded rather than parasitized for their engagement. The slide in market cap is clear evidence of the consequences of not building proper incentives for investment in building value into Steem, and reveals the opposite impact of profiteering that extracts value from the vehicle instead.
This could be easily remedied were the devs able to grasp and effect necessary changes. Code is law. They're smart people, but likely to have little experience in investing. I prefer to account for the extant code as a result of that, rather than the other possible reason.
As to Bernie, I appreciate his attention. He may not realize how his autocomments will financially reward me should I adopt Snax. Our current relationship is proof that one should not approach vipers with the same innocent regard one does bunnies. What is in a person is what comes out of them, and given the history Bernie reveals across the blockchain, I should have known engaging him with any purpose other than pandering would produce venomous attacks, rather than cuddly snuggles.
I also agree that free downvotes would but spread the cancer of Bernie further and deepen it's harmful impact.
Thanks!
My very rough guess is that right now, around 70% of active steem power is redirecting rewards back into their own pockets through either self voting, voting selling to bid bots, spamming micro votes or some other means
This is because the current economic system pays stakers 4x as much to undermine by platform via the above means than to take part in honest curation. We've long passed the point where big stakers can keep each other in check with downvotes because we understand we understand that if any individual staker chose to use their voting power to downvote someone else, not only would it deprive themselves of the opportunity of claiming that reward for themselves, most of the rewards rescued will just be redistributed to others engaging in the exact same actions.
75% of author rewards might sound like a lot, but in reality stakers are claiming both the author and curation rewards of their own votes leaving pitifully little for actual content creators, irrespective of how good their content is. The paper value of the split doesn't matter if none of it goes in the right direction: that is gradually from the stakeholders to the talented content creators via inflation like it is intended. This isn't happening at the moment because our economic system isn't sufficiently incentivizing the stakers to vote honestly, thus the plead for EIP.
I actually want the maximum amount of rewards going from stakers to authors in an honest way at a steady rate. Because the part that goes back into the stakers pockets is redundant; making a inflationary coin just for everyone to reclaim is silly unless it serves a purpose: if it sufficient motivates stakers enough to actually find and reward good content.
Raising curation from 25% to 50% will mean authors will suffer a 33% on paper decrease in rewards. But 50% of an system where votes are mostly honest is vastly more than 75% of next to noting because the money just gets shoved back into stakers own pocket. So in practice, the idea is to get much more money into the hands of authors.
Economic system is not about the naive direct effects of a change, it's about the result at equilibrium. We can make author rewards 100% but if all the large voters just get that money back for themselves, authors see none of it and the system fails. The entire idea behind EIP is to make it more profitable for voting honestly (higher curation) and less profitable to do otherwise (threats of some free downvotes)
Of course if curation was 90%, most of us stakers would vote pretty honestly, but they'll be too little rewards motivating good authors to create content. So you see, it's an optimization problem of finding the right amount to mostly maximize author rewards in practice.
I understand that it is an optimization problem, but I don't understand why you are so fixated on 50/50.
Usually, when you are trying to optimize something you slowly turn it up until you reach a point where you see the change going into the wrong direction again. Then you start testing the range of the breaking point.
Lets say you find the breaking point is 45% curation. Then you try to find the best split in the 38-44% range.
I understand that testing would take months or years, but nobody seems to even consider testing this. Stinc could run a live copy of the steem chain an see how it would affect the distribution if you change the numbers.
But just picking a random number like 50/50 and hoping that it's the best split possible for reaching your proclaimed goals is delusional in my opinion. It might be better than it is now, but is likely not the best split possible.