Limiting the payout should reduce votes, given that people voting it higher than $25 are not only wasting their vote but also earning zero curation. It may not happen immediately as there are some programmed votes and people may make mistakes, but few like to continue pissing money away, especially larger stakeholders.
The first capped post got voted up to $53 ($28 worth of wasted voted), but the second up to $33, and the third up to $31. So it does appear people are figuring it out.
For me as a author this initiative feels arrogant. I guess it's the arrogance of investors towards content creators.
I know you mean that it is what people vote on, thus being ok. You could say the same about bidbots. De-centralized doesn't mean that the authors do not bear responsibility.
And if authors are not rewarded properly, but posts like this are, this platform will feel empty soon.
Bidbots are not what people vote on, they only vote on what they are paid to vote, so there is no opinion being expressed, just purely counting the payment (also known as a bribe).
No one personally benefits from the votes made here. The only gain to be had is seeing the results contribute to the success of Steem, which, ultimately, benefits content posters too. The number one contributing factor in lower rewards to authors is the decline in the price of Steem. Working or improve every aspect of Steem is in the interest of everyone, authors included.
You can disagree with the opinion of voters that this is a good use of reward funds, but it is still an opinion. Downvote if you like; that's the mechanism we have to disagree about rewards.
People also agreed to use bidbots...
anyways, don't want to nag any more, and trending... whatever.