This is an idea I've had for a long time but haven't had an opportunity to share. Today I brought it up in a reply to 
The success of the platform depends on Steems ability to be well distributed and to flow towards people who are enhancing the ecosystem. If we have a system that rewards overly selfish behavior (or "accumulating weath", rather than spreading it as
Rather than make more rules or allow the wealth to slowly trickle upwards, why not try to create a greater incentive to spread Steem around?
Many argue that 50% curation rewards will do that but we already see many users who use their upvotes to maximize profit, which translates to upvoting users who are consistently receiving high payouts, people like
The problem is not that curators are paid too much (or too little). The problem is HOW they are paid. Being rewarded a % of the post payout encourages them to upvote posts which are likely to receive high payout and all of us who have been here long enough know that high payout depends less on quality of content and more on the users reputation....but more than that, it specifically depends on how many people have them on autovote (or in some cases how much they use bidbots).
If we just set curator rewards to 0% and did nothing else it'd create a large incentive for the largest users to keep self voting. I also think we would all agree that truly valuable curation deserves reward.
I propose we create a voting system for curators similar to our voting system for witnesses.
- Set the curation rewards to 0% of post payout
- Keep allocating 25% of the reward pool to curators (this % can be adjusted later if the need arises)
- Curators will be paid monthly (weekly?) based on their standing in the curator ranks rather than through a percentage of post payouts.
- If a large stakeholder wants to make money from curation, they will curate in a way that the community approves of.
- If a large stakeholder doesn't have time or doesn't want to do curation themselves, they can delegate to curators and pay them for their work. People will vote for them based on the quality of their curator selection.
How amazing would it be if all the whales were actually encouraged to spread their upvote throughout the community to real quality posts from a variety of users, rather than just the same few (or even worse, through gaming bidbots)?
Some minnows (and even dolphins) are disillusioned and think that none of the whales and witnesses care, but I don't see that to be true. After seeing this post from 
What do you think of this idea? Is it even possible? If yes, why not? If no, is there any other similar way to tackle this problem?
Join the "Be Awesome" discord community
The Be Awesome discord chat, was created with the intention of making deeper connections with fellow steemians. Come talk about "deep shit" and make friends.
Join Steemit Community Catalyst discord
Come join us look for ways to help minnows grow organically and create a greater sense of community on steemit. #steemitzombies , #nobidbot , the Deadpost Initiative and more project chats inside.
Confessions of the Damaged - a collection of short stories
—-
If you like what I do and you have enough to spare, please consider becoming a patron on Patreon or sending some crypto gifts. Feel free to send me a message on discord if you need help raising your vibes or learning a language.
