You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Will HF20 improve curation and what if it were already active?
Okay. First off, thank you for this. You answered the question I had regarding where the auto self-upvoting rewards actually go after HF 20 if they're no longer going to the author. They end up back in the rewards pool, rather than with the curators.
Which seems like a wasted opportunity, since so many people who self-upvote claim to be doing it to sweeten the curator pot when they've actually been sweetening their own author's pot with the self-upvote. It seems like the curator rewards would be significantly impacted if the auto self-upvoting actually folded into the curator rewards.
So, the status quo is more or less maintained. I guess we might as well keep HF 19 (aside from Velocity, maybe).
Thank you! To be clear, the author gets 75% of the vote value in both HF19 and HF20. In HF19, the remaining 25% are distributed between the author and the curators depending on the voting time, giving the author a part of that pot on top. In HF20, those 25% go to the curators or stay in the pool depending on the voting time.
Self-voting at post creation time in HF19 gives 100% to the author, while reducing the curation share for every other voter. Even if a self-vote is done after the reverse auction time when 25% of the vote value goes to the curators, there are still 75% of it going to the author. Arguing with "sweetening the curator pot" is questionable even in this case, but that's a topic on it's own ;)
If the reverse auction part of the curation share would remain with the curators, we'd have a fixed 75/25% distribution of the post rewards. This would actually be possible with changing a single line of code. Seems like this is not wanted by those in charge...
You were talking about a potential 1-2.5% increase in curator rewards between HF 19 and HF20 depending on when everyone voted. I was thinking that if that 6.6% that might go back to the rewards pool in your example actually ended up with the curators, it would be better to get the 25% distributed among them than just the 18-20%. Sweetening the pot might not be the right phrase, but potentially having the entire 25% to work with rather than only 18-something percent would be better than nothing.
As it is, I'm not sure why a 65-35, or 60-40 split hasn't been proposed, discussed, implemented, what have you. I understand the 50-50 split that was tried went away, not sure why, but guessing author's didn't like sharing so much with the curators. Which is fine. I would hope that the author is putting in more time to create a post than a curator is spending to read the post and then decide whether or not to upvote it. Or for that matter, simply auto voting, so I'm in agreement that the majority of the rewards should go with the author. There's still a range between 75-25 and 50-50 that could be explored, but as you say, that's a whole different topic.
So, this begs the question, "Why?"