Valid concerns. On the part about raising curation rewards and delegation to bots, I agree it entices passive investors to delegate to high ROI bid bots rather then sell upvotes. However, the competition would begin on which bots found the best content. Right now bots sorta "make" the best content as most of the reward goes to the author. If more went to the curator, then it becomes more important on the value of the content. Because if one bid bot kept upvoting shit content, and another didn't and made better ROI by finding better content, it could create a shift. I don't see bots going anywhere, and a passive investor should be able to delegate to a bot that helps curation via natural competition if they so choose.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I am not so sure that the value of the content will become more important to the bots, as most of them run on the dynamics of who is willing to pay them. The person paying them is more often than not paying more than the curation itself, which is how they can offer more to their bot investors seeking passive income than most could get through curation. The only change I see happening from this would be for the bot operators to compete for the delegations as the profits for their end goes up. The dynamics of the bot owner to their paying vote buyers probably will not change as far as the quality of the content. They care about the color of those SBD's or they would be competing for content already.
If I had to give up a percentage of author rewards for something, I think it would be better shifted to the new people coming that don't even know what is what. They don't know if they want to invest, and their rewards are almost non existent between their dust votes and almost non existent curation rewards. Add in their lack of being able to do much with lack of resource credits and many who do come will probably leave quickly unless the hook is bigger.