As one argued this thing 12 days ago in this post, I agree with you.
Voting is using power on reward allocation, and it can give psychological satisfaction. Arguments saying "No incentives on voting leads no votes" is very narrow understanding of human behaviors from the perspectives of both economics and psychology. People are already voting without any incentives, and even paying for being influential (Some streaming services have this business model).
For me, the only concern is reducing incentives to hold SP from the perspective of investors, since curation reward is now a way to to earn profits (which is totally wrongly aligned with the original goal of "curation"). Inactive reward can be one more option, or we can increase SP rewards.
Voting should not be free lunch
The incentives to hold SP will not be reduced because eliminating curation rewards will make the platform a lot more valuable, it will improve power concentration a lot and would make it a lot more appealing for business to integrate because of this very reason. You say curation rewards is a way to make profit, can you tell me one single investors who earned profit from curation reward? There are none because the value of steem has only gone down.
I think that inflation can be used to incentivize people to buy steem, I actually created a post about it.
So yeah I think using a portion of the reward pool to distribute to stake holder is a good idea and I also liked the idea of only rewarding inactive users.
I think steem power should be removed entirely, many in the community agree with this. It would be a lot less confusing for newbies to have 2 currencies instead of 3. Basically your voting power would be the steem in your wallet and users would be able to vote with steem that is at least 7 days old to prevent double voting.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I intentionally used "make profit" to make it easier, but actually it's compensate loss from inflation. SP holders who don't curate are losing about 8% annually, but if they curate, it will decrease to around 4~6%.
Meanwhile, STEEM holders are losing 9.5% a year, since they don't get 15% of inflation reward. Merely removing curation reward keeps the difference (15%) same, but if we change curation reward to inflation reward, the difference will become around 33%.
Details can differ, but I think the core idea is the same, as I mentioned in my last sentence. Voting is not free lunch.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
financially speaking, the 3% difference is just too small to justified the time and effort invested.
IMO, the psychological satisfaction sometimes weight much more to a curator than any financial rewards.
and I'm agree with @snowflake in his point that, the increase in platform-quality and thus the value of SP could eventually benefits SP-holders more.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I agree. I am just playing devil's advocate. You can find that I already suggested this argument last month and got a huge backlash.
But there's no significant efforts and time if one is using bots.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Exactly.... that's the main reason why curation reward should be removed.
curator who don't use bot will probably get much less than 1%, so the curation reward is actually penalizing those who perform good curation manually.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I agree with most of your comment but I don't think this conclusion is certain:
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
this isn't a bad idea....
This is lol-bad. Lets print money and give it away for free... that will increase its value. Spoiler alert -- it won't.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Money is being printed as we speak at a fixed rate and this won't change if a portion of it is used to distribute to stakeholders.
Steem is already being given for free, not sure what you are talking about.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
No, its being given away in exchange for work. Just because you don't pay for something with money doesn't mean you don't pay.
You want to take the work out of the equation, because some are doing a bad job of it, and just pay people for doing nothing.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Yes its work. Its just not good or difficult work (and its not work that should be rewarded). The solution is to reward the work that is actually valuable, not to not offer rewards for the (important) function and depend upon people to do it for free out of the goodness of their hearts.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I'm sorry but running a bot is not work and doesn't bring any value to the platform.
Authoring is work and provides value.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
In an extreme sense yes, but voter apathy is widely observed too.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Less vote is an obvious result, but voter apathy is not necessarily true. And kind of apathy seems rather good than wrongly incentivized votes.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit