Big users who either post and vote-trade daily to take max rewards from the pool are getting paid too much for their content compared to what they would be making on any other site. What they do is pretty similar than to just delegate to a bid bot and earn close to 100% back that way.

Then why in the world would you want to make it easier and more profitable for them?? I really dont understand.
After all the work OCD has done can it be really just about increased curation for you guys??? Is the appeal of having more money really that attractive that you will turn a blind eye at what will happen after this change??

Curation is quite broken in general where it doesn't matter what content you produce you get the same amount of votes if you are a big account or have the right friends.

So we agree then.
I know a bit too well about all the politics and the backstabbing and the behind the curtain play that goes on here. I might appear new, but im not, not completely anyways.
Honestly, as much as people might come out on the open about that fact you just mentioned.... those same people will still partake in that exact behavior.

In a perfect system quality content no matter what account size would get the highest rewards, not only that but also the people creating the content and the way they treat their following.

But Acid, arent you guilty of supporting exact the opposite behavior? Ive seen your upvotes on FOTM account posts. Well connected, politically adept users that use the flaw in the system to get ahead.
I could count on the fingers on 1 hand the large account curators that dont succumb to that kind of behavior and id still have 2 fingers left.

Today i had a guy write a great comment on my "Closer look at Kevin and Traf 50/50 curation" post and i almost fell for the same thing. He had 38 rep and maybe 30 SP in total. He knows noone and in steem terms is a noone. I almost didnt pay much attention to his blog, i almost fell into the same trap....
Time is a commodity and i dont have time to spend on someone that cant help me get ahead.
But i didnt because thats wrong. Its wrong what almost everyone is doing and its wrong that those that are successful at it get to gloat.

No platform in the world gives you rewards for advertising something nor should it.

I ask you again: WHY DO YOU WANT TO MAKE IT CHEAPER FOR THOSE PEOPLE???
I used bots quite a bit and on the surface this change would benefit me greatly. But im against it. How about tcpolymath? Hes respected here. He uses bots.. What does he gain from speaking up against this proposal.

A move to 50% curation makes upvote buying cheaper and moves the delegation from bots to upvote selling. Do you think Therealwolf and Reggae are idiots when they support this proposal, that they dont suspect what 50/50 curation means for their profits?
Ill bet you my wallet that theyre not idiots.
A move to 50/50 makes the top trending post go from 400SBD you have to pay now to around 250SBD you will have to pay.
This proposal will only hurt the non-boting community. No one else.

With free downvotes

There is no such thing as free downvotes. Never was never will be. You can make downvotes as free as you want (although thats dangerous business) but in the end every single downvote comes at a cost. There are trending posts right now that deserve downvotes but even if i could downvote them for free i would not.
The only time downvotes generally come are if large stake holders downvote and the person cant fight back. Or its stupid drama
Haejin, Heimin, Bernie, Fulltime.... You could give people as much free downvotes you want... None of them will participate in the flag fest.
Everyone would still just downvote weak accounts just the same way they are doing now, until they get bored.
Do you want to know how you can increase flag use?
You empower the (what you call) "quality" content creator. You give them SO much more money so once they reach a point high enough up the ladder they will potentially do the same as it was done for them, because they will not know any different.
Problem is that "equality" for top rewarded creators and creators in general, is something that reins here. I have seen top rewarded creators that compared to each other, you find there is a bigger difference in quality, by any standard know to man, then between the worst shitposter and a Curie awarded account.

The downvotes combined with 50% curation will incentivize curators to reward more quality instead since quality won't be downvoted as much meaning they will get much bigger rewards from posts that have not been downvoted so they won't risk voting on garbage posts knowing it might get downvoted and we can see a better system evolve.

Yeah, i completely disagree.... Youre making an assumption out of thin air based on absolutely nothing. Your premise is faulty so the conclusion that follows will be faulty as well.
I know this sounds harsh and your ego screaming: "some guy challenging me when i could stomp him into the ground. Im Acid, who are you?"
Thats the damned problem. Being right or wrong isnt determined by your SP, by your place in the STEEM society or anything good or bad you have done. Arguments stand or fall based on their merits.

Ive repeated this 50 times already (and im saying this with every chance of being wrong) which is probably why @phoneinf keeps on summoning me.

You are disregarding every and all factors involved. No one, and i mean no one is willing to analyze behavioral patterns that exist on the steem blockchain. They are the only solid basis that you have, to determine what exactly will change if the proposal passes.

This whole proposal is either based completely on greed from curator whales that are jealous of passive investors or on completely faulty logic.

Again... Dont listen to me... Just look at behavioral patterns that exist already and determine from there what might happen.
I did that and im pretty certain in my conclusions. Dont go: "More curation means more people will curate"... Thats what your intuition might lead you to.. But thats not reality.

Find a solid base to start from...
Take existing behavioral patterns of specific groups, analyze them, try to determine how they all affect each other and see to what final conclusion it takes you to. That is the only solid base you have for determining what might happen.

Anyways. I dont expect you to read this but if this goes down ill have something to point to and say i told you so.. Aint that a consolation prize for you. :(