Some good points. But for my point of view on this chain, the biggest Problem is the less upvoting on comments.... 

Most Stakeholders votes Articles alone. Mostly open the comment section is not being a option. "Nobody" read and wrote UNDER a article on this chain. 

Me personaly make it sad, becouse i love reading and commenting much more, than wroting own articles. 

I did wrote thousands of comments, with way more content as my articles. Sometimes i get the answer:

"This comment can be a own article."

Yeah, nice, but it is just a comment and i was just inspired from the topic words and thought in the article. 

We need more interaction first, so much more people do write less articles and more comments on this chain. With that, for me the worth of a "Social Media" is growing really. 

I agree too. I think it's ridiculous that autovoting is allowed at all (but apparently it cannot be stopped) so why encourage it with this five minute rule. 

What do you think about [this experiment](https://peakd.com/curation/@acidyo/announcement-reward-app)? It seems that it enables an author to decide whether they want to stick by current blockchain code (order of curation votes matters) or to use @reward.app which will distribute curation rewards based solely on vote weight (order of curation votes doesn't matter). In addition, it even enables the author to specify a percentage higher than 50% as the post's curation reward.

One thing which I really love about it is the granularity of control - different authors can choose which rules they want to use (they're not stuck with the blockchain's rules), and can even use different rules for different posts - e.g. for post A I might go for 50/50 split, but for post B I might go for 20/80 split. So customizable!

Read and approved 😉
* Make the time window disappear!
* Abolish Vote-Bots!
* Ban selfvotes!
* Forbid buybots and “vote for delegation“!
* Reintroduce the open/read posting counter!

![cuddle_coolcat.png](https://images.hive.blog/DQmVx4yMFPgEPce2P1vDrbXtW8BCuVMnEQVRJqRNaR7VX7F/cuddle_coolcat.png)

I like your idea but I would add a 60% penalty on self-votes -> you better use your votes on other people if you want to maximize your rewards.

I recently published another idea though. Quoting myself now:
I could imagine something like this as alternative system:

"Content that is actually being consumed is the most valuable":
-automatic rewards allocation based on reading time of individual mac-addresses (not IP-adresses or vitual machines)
-all posts get two new counters, number of individual mac-adresses reading the post and combined duration of reading of the post.
-the reward pool allocates resources automatically to all posts that have been written 7 days ago based on those metrics (maxed out at 5min of individual reading per mac-adress to avoid "reading bots").
-add in a small percentage on top, that increases the payout of written posts based on staked tokens of the author.

This system is hard to game, no votefarming, not easy for circle jerkers...

With this system you could also reduce the rewards-(pool) to authors by 20% and increase the staking rewards by 10% to encourage hodling, leading also to reduced inflation.
Also maybe think about "the longer the HODL (meaning no powerdown of the tokens, first in first out), the bigger the HODL rewards" (increase by 1-10% on top of your HODL rewards)

Yes you're right sir.i noticed that some of upvoter upvote a post without reading it. Its result to that one of quality content will not get vote and post with no quality in it get upto 14$ vote.

And as you say the curation reward must be depend on vote weight.

I wish some developer implement this idea and reflect the changes soon. Thanks

Now that I have read many comments and hopefully understand most of them to some extent, I have to realize that everything is not that easy and a fairer solution must be wanted by most people. When I look at the article, I am surprised that especially the big accounts seem not to want to take part in this enormously important debate. This post received the ridiculous 19.34 Hive Rewards after 15 hours. It shows quite clearly that those who swim against the current do not get a tailwind.

After publishing only 2.5 years on Steem/Hive within my possibilities, I realized that justice looks different. My friend Ritschi accompanies my experiment Hive as an outsider. He still doesn't understand how all this works, even though he reads all my posts. He asked me, why do I get a lower reward for an elaborate contribution than for a simple picture whose effort is limited? He asked me, why I don't post my pictures one by one, that would be much more financially rewarding, since one picture of me would still be better than 100 other blurry snapshots without description? My answer is clear, in the short term this would definitely be more lucrative. However, such a trivial contribution does not meet my personal requirements. I believe that in the long run good contributions that provide real added value will pay off. The question is whether we will be able to show people on Hive that it is worth the effort. The reward for this effort must be felt by everyone who comes to Hive!

Of course, this 5-minute window of curation also annoys me. As @jaki01 already writes, this must be changed. I am confident that Hive will experience a positive change quickly and fairly.

Wherever there is money involved, there will be people who do not think long term enough and only chase the quick profit. Most users do not want to deal with the mathematical calculations of comments, but this automatically puts them at a disadvantage. We have so many creative people here who, no matter what area they share their creativity with us, should have more attention and visibility. This is the only way to promote real quality and new members recognize the added value behind Hive. 

Performance and quality must be worthwhile!

Good ideas. Can we find enough witnesses to support these proposals?

The issue with linear curation and going back to 75/25 is that the bid bots will come back.

I think all we need to change is the 5 minute window and perhaps make rewards fixed for the first 24 hours before they taper off; then people can take the time to curate manually and outcompete the bots. 

I would like to contribute another example for the absurdity of the current curation system:

In our "<a href="https://hive.blog/created/hive-101587">Fascinating Insects</a>" community as mods @faltermann and I are the experts when it comes to these little creatures. However, instead to follow our upvotes, some 'curator bots' with big pockets but no clue about the matter prefer to upvote any blurred ladybug pictures.
And why? Because they earn more when they upvote first ...

I enjoyed reading the comments section and truly learn a lot from your conversation.

I am also trying to figure out each and every points you presented here. 

Overall I agree with you and I can see how knowledgeable and devoted you are to the improvement of this platform. 

Honestly, I'm doing my best not to upvote my own post, I also believe that its best to be used to upvote others.

I only upvote my own work if I find it unrated even if I did my best in coming up with that post and spent hours just to make it a bit attractive to curators and informative for those who really read.

Although my votes doesnt make any  significant difference at all but I pity my post and myself for getting only cents, very discouraging.

Lastly I prefer the 75/25% sharing of rewards hope it will be applied back soon.

**Thank you and more power!**

Automatic upvote sometimes is recommended when the main Curator is not physically present to read the articles but nevertheless, we need more of consumers which I will say readers than the producers ( the Curators) . Morealso, the needs to be place of the same balance sheet for more progress on Hive.

I use autovotes too but I would gladly adopt the change you offer. I must admit that sometimes, when curating manually, I have a hard time upvoting a post that I like because it already got a lot of big votes and the potential curation reward would be next to zero...

Hi @jaki01 😁,

I agree with you on that the timeframe of 5 min should be extended to 10 min at least.

>curation rewards depend only on the own vote weight (HP, percentage of the vote).

I don't agree on it. In my point of view, that means less efforts for voters, they will be upvoting only the posts of their friends since no extra rewards to upvote others or to discover content. I also like the idea to penalize the curators if they upvote more than 1 post per day per author or more than 5 posts per week per author (give less curation rewards). I know some spammers that are being upvoted more than 10 times per week by the same whale. Remove the selfvoting is a nice temporary try, because eventually people will create an alternative account and delegate their stake and continue selfvoting.

@Mahdiyari (the hive.vote provider) should stop his service, we will have less jerky circles like @backscractchers or @honeybee. At least it will be more difficult to set up jerk circles. As well, developers should obfuscate the code to avoid people follow trails and set up fanbases. Consequently, more people will be aware of their investment and upvote manually. The fact is that, high stakeholders will need to pay for manual curators like me or delegate their stake to the bidbots 😃.

>Convergent linear curve for author rewards

It's ok to avoid spam and promote investments.

>Going back to 75 % author and 25 % curation rewards.

Nope. A lot of content creators are using likwid or reward.app to liquefy rewards. The powerdown journey of 13 weeks is nice for the platform and for our security.

>Curation rewards depend only on the own vote weight (HP, percentage of the vote).

I mentioned this to @acidyo ages ago, I think the 5-minute window is a dumb idea too. Maybe it was there for a reason once, (30 mins, then 15 mins, now 5). I don't see the point and your stake should be the weight.

I don't self-vote so the other issue is a non-issue for me. Flags will sort things out like that it people start taking the piss.

Let me be clear that I'm not holier than the pope; got quite a few people on autovote also.
But nevertheless from day one I found this 5 minute window a ridiculous thing. 
No-one is able to read, evaluate and upvote "properly" within that short time-frame.
I totally agree with you and your idea.