Don't forget the underdog handicap we would be losing by replacing the 30 minute window with a 5 minute one.  https://steemit.com/curation/@beanz/the-problem-with-the-current-curation-system#@sigmajin/re-beanz-the-problem-with-the-current-curation-system-20170120t025022414z

This is also a fantastic point;  I think everyone who provides their .02c on the solution need to consider the fact that steemit.com isn't the whole enchalada.  These proposals are to the **steem blockchain**.  Meaning it will have an effect on every platform out there; dtube, chainbb, dsound, steemiz, utopiaio, busy, zappl and tons more.  Those are just the *most popular* of the many platforms that have sprouted during the beta phase of STEEM (a beautiful notion by the way.  Think of all the ideas that have been born and dev teams STEEM has helped bring to together.)  

That, and once SMT's are a thing there will be **countless** more interfaces using STEEM tech.  So if we are to put forth our ideas for UAHF/SF's they need to consider the direction of steem's future as a blockchain, not as an interface.

I do like your idea @jesta. And for the sake of trying to solve a problem, opening to more options might actually reveal how to solve the problem. Just like open source decentralized blockchains. The rule for the 5 or 30 minute, could also be something interesting... and I would even put another TWO versions on the table, which are, __1st__ "random times for each curator" (within a min and max, implied by hardcoding), OR count how long you are reading a post and save that locally, that would be used when issuing  your upvote.  The locally saved time can be easily used like some other effect of "proof of work".

sory

Saya sangat senang membaca komentar anda, luar biasa, ada solusi yang disertai analisis yang kuat. Sebenarnya kita semua sedang menunggu solusi dengan pertimbangan-pertimbangan profesional sehingga semua pihak dapat memahami kesimpulan ini dengan nalar terbuka. Terimakasih atas konstribusi profesional yang telah membuat semua merasa lega.

A configurable amount may end up with a race to the bottom. Big players may decide not to vote on certain posts based on this parameter and the content itself will not drive curation (not that it does right now but I feel that this will create the same problem but in the opposite direction).

I think this is a really important concern that @jesta mentioned. For DSound, in my experience as the developer of it, and by analysis of the last 4 months of it's live alpha, it is also not interesting to have 50/50 back. Maybe in DSound it would be even better to have it entirely as 100/0 in favor of the author, as the listener is already having the benefit of listening to the track... And that would mean more author rewards for the musician which is who technically needs them in the first place, as the curators are already having their fair share as free listeners. So, having this property customisable would benefit all and it should be only settable in the initial post and not changeable, to avoid different apps to mess with it...

Changing reward budgets per post could be problematic.

First, there is the issue of user education. Currently, users know that they get paid for posting and curating. The math is publicly available in the source code, but doesn't need to be advertised to everyone for them to understand how to use Steem. If we added such an option then it would need to be reflected in the UI so users knew how much of the rewards they could earn.

Second, while this might start as a way for different interfaces to incentivize different content, it would not stay that way for long. Savvy users would see that a configurable percentage creates a market for potential voters. If there are identical posts, one with 25% curation rewards and the other with 75%, which one will most people vote on? The answer is both, but at some ratio defined by the curation rewards curve.

This would turn curation into a market. How much of your rewards are you willing to give to curators for votes? This a slight change from the intended mentality today that curation is budgeted for rather than authors paying curators for their votes. The difference is subtle, but the perception of ownership over tokens is a powerful one. This is why many users get upset when they are down voted. The rewards are not yours until payout. But that doesn't prevent users from feeling like the rewards are theirs as soon as they receive an upvote.

I will copy -paste just a few sentences, telling about the roots of a problem:

 - “good posts” aren’t rising to the top of the trending page and topic pages like they should
-  one of the advantages of Steem was the additional of a financial incentive for good curation
- the current blockchain rules favor self-voting over effective curation

Changing 30 minutes to 5 minutes....I don't know if that's going to change anything, as most bots are already set to vote after 20+ minutes after post is published.