No. it would never work.'
Investors would leave as it would be the end of Steemit as we know it. Everyone would be upvoting their posts and circle jerking would be the name of the game.
The whales if they voted would get bigger and small accounts would just stay small.Curation is as important as the posts as without one or the other you wont have a working site. A bit like musings only having questions and no answers. you need both to operate.
I think the system needs to be played around with or change the payout maybe to a 60 40 as i know users are moaning about the proposed 50/50. Try 60/40 before you move to 50/50 as I have a feeling it will work. We need more curation and a small increase in the rewards should show everyone whether it will work or not.
There are so many quality posts on steemit not getting any attention whatsoever. People don't up vote posts on steemit based on the quality of the post but on their affilliation with the poster or the poster's ability to return the gesture. If you look at steemit closely, you would discover that the people at the bottom most often create more quality posts than most of the people at the top
Most of the people at the top already had connection, so whatever they post get noticed regardless of whether it is meaningful or not. I've come across several meaningless posts having tens of steem in pay out while very many meaningful posts are struggling to earn half a steem in payouts. So making post's payout 100% won't cause any positive change. It will only give the people posting nonsense to earn more. Beside, do you think anyone would want to support anyone if they won't be getting anything from the support? 100% post's pay out will send steemit to the grave because no one would want to vote for anyone
It might or it might not. As a content creator on Steem I would definitely like to have such an option, but I am aware at the same time that some curators would not be interested anymore in curating and rewards would decrease in value. When that happens there aren't as many incentives as before to keep boosting the quality and strive for the best forcing some of the users to simply become lazy and be satisfied with some auto votes that they have and post some average or under average quality posts. It depends a lot on the users and its curators for the quality to be improved by such a payout formula. If you have generous curators that don't care that much about that Steem Power that they get in return for curating your content then it will be perfectly fine and you would earn more while giving your best to attract even more curators, but if the people upvoting you are expecting something in return then the things will be totally different and lots of them would simply power down and get their Steem out of the wallets and probably invest that money in other cryptocurrency. I don't think though that this 100% payout system will ever be enforced because creators are the most incentivized because they bring a lot of contribution to the traffic on the platform and its value but curators have to be rewarded somehow also. I think that for now the 72/25 payout system is perfectly fine.
Hope you find my view on the topic interesting and wish you a great day!
Many quality posts pop up on the Steem blockchain everyday and while 100% Author rewards might improve the quality of posts for some Steemians, it will have a negative effect on the blockchain and users in general.
## Here are few reasons;
### 1. Early Votes
I will like you to note that some people vote early on contents just earn a high curation reward. With 100% author reward, early votes will not be important. I would feel discouraged if I spend hours to write a quality post and after say 10hours, I do not see any votes on my post.
### 2. Promote Malpractices
High SP users will engage in self-votes, forming trails among themselves and other practices that will make support to make support to low SP users almost impossible since that have really nothing to compensate themselves with in the name of curation rewards.
### 3. Inefficient use of Voting Power
Personally, I like to vote and engage on a post that is still very much early with high curation rewards been my first interest. If payouts are 100% author, I would not be bordered to always check my feed from time to time in order to vote early. Instead, I might program my voting times such that I can just show up and vote on 10 posts at once (for example)
### 2. Little or No Support to Newbies and Redfishes
Like I said in point 1, some people support good contents with curation rewards being one of their motives. With 100% Author reward, I fear some newbies and minnows might receive little or no support from the community. Everyone here wants to earn and become rich at some point.
Furthermore, with RC being a problem to these newbies and Redfishes, I fear the platform will not accommodate them.
The reward system is very okay 75% Author rewards and 25 curation rewards. This way, it's a win win for both authors and curators (voters)
For me, I'm quite comfortable with the current payout method now. If you change to %100, sure that the authors will have more motivation to post, but on the downside, there will be lots of spams or non-quality posts. Furthermore, for other people who read and vote, giving them 0% rewards will demotivate them.
No, because curators would not have any direct financial incentive to curate. The result would be more self-voting, circle-voting and vote-selling. Now the curation reward system is set up so that curation rewards are maximized by voting popular-to-be content before the rest, thus creating an incentive to find undervalued content.
No that would turn into a giant whale circle jerk and anyone who is not an orca right now would be completely screwed.
Definitely not. Why would you curate if you could not get paid for that? That would very strongly discourage manual curation. With 100% author payouts, vote selling and vote trading would be the only way to make any significant money with Steem Power. It would make the vote farming (= vote selling + vote trading) problem even worse than it already is. We would have to say goodbye to quality content.
That will definitely won't work.
1. If ever 100% payout would be implemented, investors will pull out their investments because upvoting won't give them curation rewards.
2. An author will write whatever he wants. His writing from the start will ever be the same.
It's a no to me
The system will surely going to collapse with a 100% payout to others
For the blockchain to function smoothly and well then I will say curator payout is very necessary
No No No
Giving 100% post payout to authors will only diminish and kill interaction on the steem blockchain. To me, if it were possible to stop self upvtes in the system it would have been better, We all have t to support one another when we are sure we'll get the dividends of doing this.
of course not. 100% to author then what rewards for currators. Currators % power is not necessary if like this. currator rewards is away to attract votes. no rewards what to vote for?