Congratulations @steemitblog!
Your post was mentioned in the [Steem Hit Parade](/hit-parade/@arcange/daily-hit-parade-20190516) in the following category:

* Comments - Ranked 1 with 242 comments

```Alternatively, users could choose to act more subtly by spreading stake across more, but smaller, votes at the cost of a suboptimal return. We cannot eliminate such behavior entirely, but we can make it less economically viable.```

See, the problem is one of perspective. One cannot have a totally *decentralized* and *censorship free* platform that grants monetary *incentives* (the whole purpose of using a blockchain, right?) **AND** *control* what people do with it, including spam, bid bots and the rest. To me, this is how I **know** it's a platform of freedom and NOT one of Facebook-like totalitarianism. I *want* to see *some* abuse take place, and I want to see community action solve it, like in many cases in Steemit's past. Not some **core** team of developers, who should step away from the politics of steemit, and be more concerned writing press releases about how the Steem blockchain is even *more* decentralized   (like, way more than 19-top-witnesses decentralized).

Posted using [Partiko Android](https://partiko.app/referral/artopium)

I still think the best way to ***Fix*** the curation issue that everyone seems to be so concerned about is to simply write in code that ***completely*** randomly starts the curation payout timer.  With that one simple action then curation becomes a reality because there is no way to game the start time of curation. 

Right now almost everyone thinks the 12-17 minute time frame is the absolute best time to vote to maximize most curation rewards. Vote buyers and sellers and bots and vote trails all shoot for this time frame, vote trail votes are not curation, vote bots are not curation,vote buys are not curation. 

Curation is people voting for content they like regardless of what time the post was posted. That is curation. Can you imagine what the trending page would look like if you completely ignored the number of votes a post received in the first hour? It would be a real trending page then.

I understand the random start time of curation reward payouts will never be a reality, at least not on steemit, after all look at your post a free downvote pool, yes by all means lets reward bad behavior, and there is a lot of bad behavior downvoting going on whether you or anyone else wants to see it or admit it.  

People are punished forever for a error in judgement, look at mack.bot, it does not matter if the person changed their ways, they are punished for ever until they simply give up. A downvote needs to be for a cause, and downvoting a comment someone made simply because they made a comment is wrong, Down voting a post that does not violate any of the suggestions for a reason for downvoting simply because of a bad decision in the past is wrong. 

I would like to think the downvote pool is not a done deal, but the writing is on the wall and it seems the decision has already been made.

greed and lust will doom them all.

Posted using [Partiko Android](https://partiko.app/referral/bil.prag)

More Curation Rewards is Goooooood !

DownVote Pool is not Helpful for Vituous Cycle of Steem when it abused downvoting in Harmful way i.e. in Personal !

Posted using [Partiko Android](https://partiko.app/referral/bluengel)

I have never heard anybody complaining about the costs or lack of incentives associated with down voting...

Posted using [Partiko Android](https://partiko.app/referral/bluerobo)

I don't believe changes such as these will alter the behavior of large stake bad actors in any way. The main problem is that these accounts have large votes that single handedly propel the rshares of the content they vote on to a very high point in the curve which matches the current economics, thus no change occurs for them. There also will be no change to self voting patterns because this remains the best ROI for them. Even with a 50/50 split enacted, large accounts would have to have votes nearly equivalent to their own voting strength come on to the post subsequent to their upvote in order to begin to match the gains they'll get from self voting and scooping both the author and curator payout on their own content. This doesn't happen because of their sheer size, as it takes a huge number of small users to match them. The only viable alternative for large accounts is to split their vote into many smaller votes, which I'm sure is the preferred outcome, but is entirely unreasonable to expect we'll see better quality curation out of this. Telling an investor that to see good returns they'll merely need to read, evaluate, and vote on a couple thousand articles a day using 1% of their upvote strength is a non starter. It'll still be sold, outsourced, etc resulting in no change to curation. The only thing that will begin to make curation more viable is a much larger userbase and a broadening middle class. These proposals actually stunt the growth of both with lessened author rewards and curtailed voting power at the low end. Curation should be organic. Vote on what you like. All of these changes seem to aim at making users guess what will be the most rewarded, which isn't organic discovery. 

We have yet to see how the current system will function at full scale. I firmly believe that when there are tens of millions of active users and voters, we'll see genuine opportunities for profitable curation under the current ruleset, and self voting insular whales will merely handicap themselves by not growing a fanbase and interacting positively with the broader community.

The only thing I would support is some form of continuing to normalize and encourage downvotes. Much of this could be simply educational and psychological, not even on the blockchain level. Badges and avatars, a quick hover over a user that'll show stats on how broadly they curate, how much they self upvote, etc. A complete overhaul of the reputation system that embraces this. (self upvotes decrease visible rep score?)

All in all, far too much time is being spent on how to influence a few dozen people to not be short sighted... and far too little is being spent on how to prepare Steem for millions of users.  We should be asking ourselves how proposals like this impact users holding 1-5 Steem power. If we get to 100 million accounts... that's how much 99% of those accounts will have. If we get to even 10 million active users in the next couple years, given Steem inflation we're looking at each account earning a median of approximately 3 Steem per year. And that's the median... since early adopters will vastly outperform that, virtually all average users following any kind of widespread adoption will see less than 1 Steem per year in earnings. Period.

Forget trying to figure out if 99.9% of the future users will get .8 Steem or .6 Steem a year. Leave improved curation and community specific rewards up to SMTs, Oracles, and 2nd layer systems as has been the seeming plan all along.

Create the much needed Resource Credit pools for dApps, communities and large scale adoption. If you want to change the current dynamic somewhat, **do not** allow RCs and SP to be separated during delegation. Serious businesses that have need of both the RCs and the SP for responsibly building and rewarding their communities will inherently pay more for these combined delegations than a bid bot project that has no use for the RC component and we'll see more SP shift to sustainable and responsible business applications and allow a better avenue for passive investors to pursue ROI.  And finish polishing up that Promoted Post system to wrestle back some of the "exposure" spending from bid bots and create a counter to Steem inflation!

With those changes, in my opinion, users will just move from delegating to bidbots to selling the "right" to vote in their name to services like minnowbooster and smartsteem.

Also many users enjoy the passive income that comes with the delegation. Maybe you are focusing too much on the social side of steem, failing to see it as a platform for many other services / businesses. If so, private chat on steemit would be a great start (it doesn't have to be on blockchain).

So basically we're going to address all of the community concerns and fix the shit that we've told you was broken for three years after leaving beta?  Was waiting while whales systematically destroyed any semblance of a middle class on the platform and made the majority of the community leave worth it?

While I like those technical approach, I don't think changing the current reward dynamics on **STEEM** is a good idea. Because there are diverse opinions on this issue, as we can see many people's comments here, moving towards in favor of one side of them would make the other sides dissatisfied.

Rather, I argue for removing contents rewards, i.e. author rewards and curation rewards, from STEEM and shifting the role to sub-community tokens, a.k.a. **SMTs**. Steemit also can issue *STEEMIT SMT* that has similar or suggested (by @vanderberg) PoB economics to the current STEEM. Others like @trafalgar can issue alternative SMT that meets his EIP. This approach has several merits.

1. Given the approach, we can focus on SMT development and don't need waste time for debates and following code changes about the economic model.

2. Market models will work. Various approaches can be experimented and be proven their values in the market as a token price. This survival of the fittness environment will strengthen Steem's ecosystem.

3. By removing PoB rewards from STEEM, its inflation can be dramatically reduced, hence investors can be more attracted to the base currency STEEM. Also, investors don't need to compete with contents creators by self-vote, etc. to ensure higher ROI.

4. Given decreased inflation, we have more room for ecosystem-level experiments like [Steem Proposal System](https://steemit.com/blocktrades/@blocktrades/proposing-a-worker-proposal-system-for-steem) by @blocktrades.

This change make STEEM as a base currency and investor-friendly token; they can earn identical ROI without doing 10 self-votes per day. For comparison, in the current system investors who don't self vote have much less ROI than those do 10 times per day. It will also reduce meaningless votes from investors' purposes.

Some SMTs can be built on the investors return. Good-will (or smart) investors, or Steemit inc. may launch SMTs which value and inflation speed are pegged to STEEM. I am sure there will be much more creative ideas for Steem's growth.

I wish the dev team solely focus on SMT and redeveloment the whole thing with the new paradigm, rather than band-aiding the current things.

Those three proposal will only drive away most investor who hold big stake as bot operator in my opinion. Because, people do invest to make profit and not to lost. 

Why not just add reward poll to reward post based on organic view from search engine. In addition, this post will keep rewarded until it adds value to the blockchain. Let author earn like they own the website as there personal blog. You may get those fund from adverts.

This makes those author out there to start blogging on steem blockchain instead of registering there domain name. Furthermore, it encourage old user to post only and really quality post.

<a href="https://imgflip.com/i/3151f4"><img src="https://i.imgflip.com/3151f4.jpg" title="made at imgflip.com"/></a>

# <center> You guys JUST DONT LIKE PEOPLE RIGHT? </center>

---

<center> We have NO VOICE. We are just Steemit Inc whores. </center>

No matters what face is under Steemit Inc administration, they always F**K little ussers

# <center> Steemit Inc Policy: Fuck little ussers </center>
> No matter when you read this.

<p>

I just dont want to write anymore, really, whats wrong with you? Its just amazing, how a new administration can be __THAT EVIL.__

---

# The future? A few whales voting each other on his empty post. 

---

Just...Why stupid people have always the power? What are we? Just GARBAGE. You just want to earn at any cost, even killing content creators. 

Cant believe this is happening again.

Just a big fuck you! Go post on Twitter that descentralization news are needed then post same ideology as CNN on the same twit.


Anyways... No one is going to read this, because (surprise) _im just a nobody_

# <center> Hypocrites and cynics.</center>