The paper analogy doesn't really fit. Having a limitless scope doesn't prevent anything from being built on it.
The metaphor of a pool works better. If you're developing a comment/post agnostic app, which pool do you choose? And if those pools become even more and more subdivided which mini-hot-tub do you pick then?
Plus, if you're a person who owns stake in the network, you'd be disenfranchised from your own influence unless you were willing to double your curation "workload."
From what I've heard about the communities, it's going to be split into hottubs.
And the curation rewards for comments isn't necessary. Considering the rewards never incentivised curation that was good for the network, I think they can take a cut in favour of commenters. Investors would benefit more from an engaged community rewarded from comments that they would from circlejerk curation rewards.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Curation isn't just about the rewards. It's about the responsibility of stakeholders to allocate the reward stream of Steem.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Exactly. So a reward cut wouldn't be a bad thing especially if it discourages irresponsible allocation of rewards. Such as (in my opinion) what we have forever had with the trending page.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit