I think this is a good idea. Although I post here now and then and they do good, I still think curators are rewarded too little. It has totally taken away the incentive for me to want to curate properly noticing a small reward in return  for my efforts compared to my SP level.

I am glad the community are taking the steps and asking or suggesting changes, shows that its headed in the right direction over time, considering Steemit listens to its users!

Yes the old curation system works quite great and it's the strongest selling point of SP, IMHO. After changing to the new curation, these are a lot of people complaining and totally stop upvoting. You could find a lot of posts about that problem.

>So what is my solution? I strongly believe we need to move the payout split to 50:50 between authors and curators from the current 75:25 it is at.

I think other solutions must be found.

>For example, I have 20,000 Steem Power and my average earnings per day is around 6 Steem Power. That means my daily return on investment is .03% a day and only around 11% a year and that is with a pretty profitable curating strategy.

I have 2900 SP and my stats are:

Daily average curation rewards:
2.374 STEEM POWER
Estimated curation rewards last week
16.618 STEEM POWER:

So it goes like .08% and 30% over a year.

Note that I also spend upvotes in comments as "likes" - so it's not maximized.

I'm glad You Posted this
Thx So Much!

Very interesting. For those of us who haven't been here long, we're ignorant of the fact that this was the way it used to be. I wasn't convinced from the article, maybe because I'm used to the way it is. But after reading through the comments, I can see the value in a 50/50 split. And the reduced payout for authors might be offset, at least to a degree, by more curator participation.

You make a very interesting point but with all the supply being eaten up demand is sure to rise, imo this situation is actually a good thing.

It was 50/50 and then they changed it to 75/25, partly because they felt whale curators were earning the lions share of the pot. Here is the article explaining why they were changing things:

https://steemit.com/steemit/@steemitblog/overhaul-of-curation-rewards

It is possible that there is a sweet spot between 50/50 and 75/25 - but it would take a lot of iterations to find it.

Hmm seems kind of  a catch 22 give more to the curator who goes and reads content, compared to the actual author who spends time writing it.

But also with out powering up no one would get any rewards, the main issue is a cap on how much a post can earn- Err nvm that is centralized and censorship why not  having any post that earns more than $1000 should have that split in favor of the curator.

I very much so believe in steemit far beyond any other crypto and due to the falling price of steemit, I have not  transfered other coins into this platform yet.. Now seeing that the price is at a low, and honestley don't think it will go any lower.. Therefore does anybody agree that this is the time to move the majority of assets into steem?  
Thanks for the share :D

I have had thoughts on this also. I was a bit more extreme than you lol. My thought was to have 25% of a post total by default go to author. The rest is divided up and focused amongst the comments. 

I was trying to think along the lines of "What can a human do that a bot can't?". I would say provide meaningful relevant comments to a post. I would not at all want to remove the author from the reward pool of curation though. 

If the rest was thrown into comments and votes/responses for the post wether it is supportive, a counter argument etc by post readers and/or authors defending their post. Just makes an interesting way to divide the rewards from a post.

New users are encouraged to read and make statements relative to the post and if theirs is chosen they get to earn beyond what the curation rewards currently would allot them. 

Bots, well they could take a stab at the correct answers, but I would think this seriously limits their use to game the system.

I'm not sure that changing the percentages really does enough to address the underlying problem.  I spend hours writing and formatting my weekly posts, but on average make more from curating than from my writing (which in itself is a problem but that's another topic of discussion altogether).

I feel like my close to 800 SP is a decent sized investment relative to my crypto portfolio's net worth, yet I'm still a minnow and 800 SP is a drop in the bucket compared to what I would need just for my vote to be worth a dollar.  Only a handful of people can afford to invest enough to make a decent amount from curating, and it shouldn't be that way.  You shouldn't need to invest thousands and thousands of dollars for your vote to become meaningful.

I say rather than fiddle with percentages, more needs to be done to redistribute SP away from the whales and even out the distribution, so that regular people can participate and feel they are having a meaningful impact on the community.  I know this process is ongoing to a degree with power downs, but it's a slow process and I wish something could be done to accelerate it.

Interesting that you suggest this as it was the original design.