The 5mins time window should be extended...  But don't touch the curation reward whatsoever...  

I somewhat agree with you

The curation reward is what keeps this platform going.
If you want to take this platform up you need 2 things -
1. More decentralization - top 20 witnesses is a small centralized club.
2. Create accounts via fb and google accounts to increase usage.

'Ban the bot' that is what I would like but I know too well that this would not be possible.

Would there be a way to reduce the voting power for each subsequent vote for the same person. Like an increasing tax sent to null with each vote they make. This is Just a thought and not fleshed out too well.
 
I do like the way Leofinance has done it by flattening the curve and making it more fair for people who actually vote manually and trying to promote better content. Or, maybe we could look at the tipping model like on Whaleshares.
 
I am worried that by trying to lower inflation at the cost of curation it will seem that the bigger stake holders are just bringing in a change to suit themselves at the expense of smaller/newer users.

@theycallmedan @blocktrades solution, and the ability to use "" HIVE DOLLARS and HIVE DOLLARS POWER
 hive power and hive"", we make hive an investment and HIVE DOLLARS POWER les récompense
we have to add HIVE DOLLARS POWER and be a real stablecoin. to explain my point of view and make it easier to calculate suppose hive its value is 1 hive = 1 dollar and 1 HIVE DOLLARS POWER = 1 dollar .
I start with the publication awards :
it's the same thing 50% author 50% conservative
or can change it to 75% author
because the Conservative would have other way to earn more.
more explanation in investor.
the rewards will only be with stablecoin HIVE DOLLARS POWER.
investor hive :
the more you buy "hive" the more you earn "HIVE DOLLARS POWER" which will be used only for the vote, example : you have 1000 hive power it pays you 2 HIVE DOLLARS POWER every day ""the calculation will be on the value of hive"".
2 HIVE DOLLARS POWER you can only use them to recompose the authors.
and when a curator votes 50% conservative in HIVE DOLLARS "HIVE DOLLARS liquid" who can use as he wants,
so we can encourage investors to stay in hive power, and encourage investors to invest in new business or application.
abstract :
hive power makes you win HIVE DOLLARS POWER everyday.
hive power you can lend is win hive and HIVE DOLLARS .
HIVE DOLLARS POWER for voting only
HIVE DOLLARS and hive for trade
the authors earn HIVE DOLLARS who can sell it or invest it.

I myself am ***totally*** against any changes to the current reward pool system. I have read many different comments and post on the subject. For the 3 years I was on Steem every hard fork involved trying to ***fix*** the reward pool.

The reward pool system has never had a chance to stabilize. No changes should be done to the reward pool system until we have the foundation of Hive solidly built. Hard Fork 24 was a great start, we are now done with steem and now the next steps need to be done.

The witness selection/retention system needs to be worked on first. Hard Fork 25 should be about completing the *Smart Contracts*, (SMT/HMT), and the witness system. 

If we as a group are going to do as steem block chain did and continue to chase the reward system then there really is nothing to differentiate Hive from Steem block chain.

After reading thru the many responses on my original post, I also concluded that an expansion of the curation window, with all curation during the window equal, is the next thing we should try. It's one of the things I want to see in the next hardfork.

I understand the need to make changes for large stake holders but it's challenging because it often negatively effects those who spend lots of time doing things like manual curation. Just when folks like myself are getting a decent stake (who have made investments in Hive, not freeloading) I see ways to shake it up in a manner that would hurt progress I'm making.

To BLocktrades comment, I would love to see an even playing field on the curation window but that can certainly also be gamed but I would like to see how that proposal shakes out. 

Dialogue is important though, we can all agree to that so thanks!

I really like the idea of using actual staked hive power to cast your vote.  That enables more manual voting and doesn't make it necessary to cast your 10 auto votes a day, rather than picking out deserving content. 

> Expand the curation window from 5mins to 1 day, make all curation on the 1st day equal.

I would love to support this change and see how it works!

First of all, trending still sucks, and any change thought to improve is better than doing nothing, I support you.

I think this is a very good proposal and hope it's choosen

>I propose we lower curation rewards to the point where the potential gain from curation is too small to make it worth the negatives associated with using an auto-vote bot. 

Lowering curation rewards makes author rewards (and likely bot abuse) *relatively* higher, so back to the same problem as before.

The recent change to LEO’s curation curve can serve as a test for what might happen if Hive adopted something similar.

That said, the underlying idea that Hive’s inflation rate is “too high” seems a bit suspect to me. If/when the user base is 100X what it is today, inflation that’s already less that 8% won’t seem high at all.