This will better serve the original mission of the curation rewards budget: to ensure that the Steem blockchain distributes rewards to the mostvaluable content.
He who pays the most, gets the most, a real win for the vote bot owners. The term Valuable Content does not and never has equated to quality content on steemit, which used to be the steemit rallying call, not I guess it's just show me the money and I will give you a tiny kickback.
Thanks for pointing that out. I kind of glossed over it while dealing with the rest of what they were saying. It's rather disturbing to think that Steemit and the top witnesses truly believe that distributing more of the rewards to more popular posts is part of their core mission.
I don't think it's like that necessarily. Their hope after all is that the value assigned to the post eventually aligns with a better measure of value (yes I know, vague), and this change is a strict improvement over this weird quirk where currently the author themselves can assign value to their own posts without any feedback from others.
You can claim the feedback system itself is broken, but I think we are making adjustments to improve that, as slow as the process is.
Anyway, I think this change is a necessary one. We still have to tackle the shit show that is the bid bots.
I don't think that's true at all. Certainly it isn't in the mathematical sense.
Why is it better than making curation always 25% and giving nothing to the pool? Why is it better than doing away with the early voting penalty completely?
Even if you really want to solve the perceived problem with extra author rewards, both of those would be immensely better ways to do it.
Mathematics? What value function are you optimizing?
I'm coming from the point of view that the community should decide, not the author, so... Yes, it's about the perceived problem with extra author rewards at least in the context of self voting.
Making curation always 25% might be better. But I don't really have a strong feeling there. Fix reward assignment, and it "going to the pool" is just fine with me.
Getting so hyperfocused on one problem that you cause four new ones isn't helpful. You can wait until every clued-in author is working to make sure no one votes on their posts in the first fifteen minutes, and until comment-section lag becomes an obvious problem, or you can figure out that those are going to happen ahead of time and come up with a better solution.
Why would an author do that? The author gets the same regardless in the new rules. The curator voting incentives also don't change. The only thing is that authors are going to get 25% taken away guaranteed rather than getting a possible bonus for early votes.
I know why that's not so desirable from the perspective of distribution, and we can talk about that part, because I still think that I like the penalty for early self voters. I certainly was taking full advantage of that when I self voted and botted.
I'm now finding the thread between you and @timcliff so I might pop a few words there. That one will be less about the author and more about the effects of the early window penalty itself.
This won't be true. Both sophisticated voters and curation min-maxers will make decisions on which post to vote for based on how much value their vote can give to the post vs the pool, which will be lower for any post that has early votes.
Setting up so that voters have to make that decision also makes voting immensely more complicated.
It's definitely a big advantage for people who know how to do it. I push that hard myself. But if we're going to remove it, we should remove it by making it equally desirable to have votes at any time, not less desirable to have early votes.