For every user, there is more to take their place who can deal with the system. I heard this phrase used by more than a few high ranking people in the community so some people don't even care. They think the reward split for eip with offset this downvote pool with new users.
There bet in on the 50/50 reward split will bring more users than we will lose with the changes.
"For every user, there is more to take their place..."
No, there's not. Even if there were an unlimited populace of potential users to draw from, this ignores that getting a user has costs. With a dismal retention rate of about ~7.5% YOY, that's a scary argument to make.
"...more than a few high ranking people in the community so some people don't even care. They think the reward split for eip with offset this downvote pool with new users."
"There bet in on the 50/50 reward split will bring more users than we will lose with the changes."
I bet you're talking about bidbot owners. Have you ever noticed a difference between rhetoric and action? Sometimes people say things they don't mean. It's actually a very common practice. Fraud is horribly common, and that's what fraud is.
I'm not saying no one honestly feels this way, but there are certainly people with financial incentive to support proposals such as this which will make their profiteering more profitable. Increasing curation rewards will not in any conceivable way increase retention of new users with insubstantial stakes, because the quantity of rewards they can gain from the work necessary is insubstantial. Most new users won't jump in with substantial stakes, because even fairly simple people will want to test the waters first.
Extant substantial stakeholders are profiteering from their stakes almost to a man. I know of some few that curate for other reasons, and god bless every one of them. They are the exceptions, not the rule.