I don't like this idea of 50/50, I think the author must get the biggest part of the reward as he is the one who creates the content, comments, and curators must not have as much as the author. Some posts may take very long to create in research, graphics or in post prod in video. I feel the way the 75/25 is now is fair.
Curators provide the funding though and all users can also benefit since curation is something everyone can do. It takes two to tango. Plus linear + low curation rewards just make it easy for anyone to efficiently sell their votes under marketprice, and it also disrupts content ranking, etc. Overall, just working against the favor of SP holders. Without an active curation economy, producers that take time and effort will have a higher chance to get left out. Today it's too costly for any large stakeholders to support actual contributions.
Edit: some thought exercise - imagine if there's 0% curation rewards, what will almost everyone do? People would rather vote themselves only. It actually has the same effect as 100% curation rewards. There's a symmetrical effect. Same goes for 25% curation rewards and 75% curation rewards. So now we're left with 50% curation rewards right in the middle.
Good one! The middle path is needed, all these calculations are without the consideration of vote buying and all those bid bots and numerous accounts owned by the same person.
There is no perfect solution. Perhaps one could have some simulation of the different formula and see the results. Then, psychological persuasion can never be predicted in advance. A referendum?! The whole ecology of Steemit is far too complicated to be dissected and analysed. How about those whales and dolphins, passive investors's reactions.
No way that a change will not entail unforeseen consequences!
There is no such thing as free lunch! Karmic rules.
As for other issues in Steemit time will fix it and will also tell what is the good algorithm also, the situation of the market not helping yet.
Thank You, @kevinwong. The way you explain it makes more sense than what I've previously read. It is never easy to give satisfaction to each side, but as you explain it the content creators may lose some on their posts but will get it back the other way with curation (if their stake is big enough), it is a good way to incentivize the investors and stakeholders which are vital for the eco-system. There is a lot of confusion around about the subject, it must be explained clearly, when reading comments in a few posts, I get a wrong idea about it. Maybe the best is to let the time fix the confusion by the practice. Just have to see what's all parties will think of it in a month or so. Also, today's market situation makes everything harder for everyone, no matter if you are a curator, investor... the 50/50 maybe the best answer to today's situation. Thank You.
Yeah, this one I do agree! Sh* , this topic confuses me a lot lolol