You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: As a top steem witness, will you support a hardfork implementing the “Economic Improvement Proposal” or “EIP.”

in #dpoll2 years ago

Voted for

  • NO

While I am strongly in favor of adding a separate downvote pool, I have to vote "NO" as this is being presented as an all or nothing option.

I am not at all confident that the change to 50% curation rewards is a good idea, and may even possibly turn out to be a very bad idea. In addition, I think we should focus our limited resources on the most important things, and in my opinion there are many more important things to focus on than the posting/voting reward distribution numbers, which, in the scheme of things, are only understood or matter to an extremely small number of people.

Obviously, if the majority of the top witnesses feel differently and choose to approve this change I will support it fully and do my best to ensure that the hard fork is sufficiently tested and rolled out smoothly, however I wanted to take this opportunity to let the community know my stance on these proposed changes.

Sort:  

I agree that 50% curation could turn out to be a bad idea. As a content creator i feel that the loss in post rewards is biger than any gains in curation and extra votes.

I would like to suggest a change in the distribution of curation rewards within the existing 25% system instead. If early voters (like in the first 30 minutes) would get an even bigger share than they do now, you would shift curation rewards from vote sellers to actual curators and by doing so stimulate curation as well.

If voting bots were not to cast votes within those 30 minutes, users would be stimulated to beat the bots and vote early. Users from bots who do not comply to this 30 minute rule could be corrected from downvotes from the coming downvote pool.

I think this would create the same results, without harming content creators.