Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this; always good to hear what you think!

Yeah the same here.  I don't get on Reddit, I don't get on Facebook, I don't get on Medium, I don't get on Snapchat......etc.  I'm on YouTube and Steemit.  If I could make even just $80 / day on Steemit across 4 posts I would spend a "full time" effort on it.  But suddenly it turned into.... I don't want to even bother trying to get a whales attention and hope they upvote my post.  It sort of feels like begging on the street corner.  

Steemit has so much potential.  I just hope it isn't too late for the platform.  A lot of people in the crypto space have looked into it and made their opinion so it will be hard to overcome previous perceptions even if things are fixed for the better.

Reddit didn't work for me, either.
I got about ten minutes in and never went back, until I had to sign up here.

I'm glad they are doing something, now.
I've seen posts about the disparity from months ago.

I'm wondering if you're missing the meaning of the curve. The curve shows how a *post's* reward is calculated as a function of how much stake is voting for it. It does *not* show an account's voting strength as a function of its stake.

What the linear curve would do is redistribute rewards from highly-voted posts to less-highly-voted posts. I don't think it would have much impact on low-voted posts (I could be wrong, I haven't run the numbers). It would just require a little more stake for a post to get off the ground, so to speak.

> All payouts that earned very little already are reduced even more with this curve. 

No theyre not.  Vshares aren't porportional to payout except as a percentage of total vshares assigned.

as an example, imagine two posts.  One post has 1MV of SP voting for it.  The other, 100MV of SP lets assume that 1MV = 3 rshares, and and 100MV = 300 rshares.

Under the current system, the first post would get 3^2=9 vshares and the second post would get 300^2=90000 Vshares..   As a result, the second post would be paid 10000x more than the first post.

Now lets look at the modified system.  Its dependent on the threshold, but lets take the n^2/n-1 idea that steemit, inc came up with (because i think its a better formula)

Under that system, yes, youre correct, the absolute number of vshares on the 3rshares post would be less.  it would go from 9 to 5.5.  But the second post, the one with 300 rshares would go down even more (from 90,000 to 909).   As a result, the first post would get just under 1% of the reward pool, and the second post would get just over 99% (which is pretty close to linear, where it would be exactly 1% and 99%).

Note that, like others, i think this threshold is far too high.  (though, tbh i like the one proposed by steemit inc)

>It reduces payouts across the board. All payouts that earned very little already are reduced even more with this curve. It doesn't make the distinction between grandma's travel post or someone who would abuse the system.

Its not really possible to "reduce payout accross the board" (without changing the composition of the reward pool) because, regardless of the number of Vshares assigned, there is still the same amount of money being distributed.  

The number of Vshares a post gets doesn't really matter.  Its the _percentage_ it gets of all vshares.

The entire rewards pool is awarded every day.  So, there is no way, it reduces payouts across the board.  It just might change who the winners are, or how much they win.

It's been a broad-based effort to help 350-400 different content creators from diverse areas. And if this proposal is enacted, then I hope there will be much less need for large-scale distribution of whale rewards via guilds. 

You have been nothing but abusive. I hope you and your 2000 bots get some mental help.

I have been as critical of curie and SG as anyone else.  As far as I know, i was critical of curie and SG _before_ anyone else.  Im basically the steemit OG of talking shit on where the guild/curie/whatever payroll comes from.

Personally, as i have said many times, i feel that these @donkeypong  projects do more harm than good.

However, one of the the reasons that he can have the magnitude of effect that he does, in spite of being barely a whale in SP balance,  is because he is one of a very few people that can get come up with a plan and get the "steemit inc" whales on the same page as the "bernie and friends"(broadly defined) whales to support it.  It seems very likely to me that if he had an agenda that anyone could see, one side or the other of these two loose groups would support his projects and the other would oppose it (like TDV or Ozchart).  Becasuse frankly, their perspectives are so different that they rarely agree.

There are two possible explanations for this.  Either DP is a cross between Svengali and Cardinal Richelieu --  a master manipulator playing each side against the other while keeping 6 balls in the air at once to further his exploitative agenda.    Or there's just no agenda there, and DP's motives are what they appear to be on the surface.

Based on my limited interaction and observation, i think the second one is true.  In my experience, sincerity is fairly difficult to convincingly fake over even the medium term with any degree of  consistency.

I do believe that there are small number of people in these institutions who _are_ there merely to manipulate the system to their own benefit at the expense of the platform, and that they are taking advantage of DP as much as they are of the platform as a whole.  I also believe that there are many more well-meaning individuals in these institutions that have performed a significant amount of rationalization acrobatics to convince themselves that their own out-sized financial benefit coincides with the overall benefit of the platform, when it really does not.  (and even some who are compensated reasonably for benefits that  they bring to the platform).

Personally, i believe that DP is trying to solve a problem.  I also personally believe that he _isn't_ solving it (or even ameliorating it very much).  But just trying and not succeeding isn't something that deserves conetempt.

I agree. I think the role of Guild would be changed to "make posts beyond discount range". E.g. given 400 MVESTS discount, 3000 MVEST voting (about 1/3 of current Steem Guild voting) will make posts have about 90% linearity while it gives a post $7~8. If the discount is lowered under 100, 1000 MVEST voting would be enough to make posts attractive.

> If the rewards become less "top heavy", far more than 400 creators can earn significant rewards without the Guild's intervention.

But then another potential "Guild" can step in and aggregate another community of curators, which will redistribute the newly assigned rewards. 

It only seems logical that, if more authors will receive more significant rewards, there will be more at stake. I didn't say "the guilds will increase in influence" with some sort of a judgement, like this will be either "bad" or "good". I just observed the possibility that new communities of curators can aggregate again, because there will be a more even surface of play. How this will tilt the balance, it's still something to be determined, IMHO.