Just a heads up for those that read my stuff more then what Blocktrades writes. haha LINK TO POST

STEEMIT.INC decided to pay Blocktrades to develop a "STEEM proposal system" similar to "Bitshares worker proposal"...
How it works is: You make a proposal and get funded from a reserve pool of funds if the project is determined as being beneficial to the STEEM blockchain..

The thing is that these funds have to come from somewhere... A few people mentioned that Donations were the answer, but the truth of the matter is that donations would not work...
The distribution right now is extremely one sided, the richest accounts getting most of the STEEM, meaning that you can throw away any notion of the "community" donating anything.
Best you can hope for are donations from a extremely small number of, lets call them, charitable whales like Blocktrades, Acid, etc.. But even those donations would remain extremely small.

So donations really go out the window.

The solution that was presented was taking a cut from author rewards of aprox 20% across the board.

DAYUM.

Folks will not like that.
Content creators are the lifeblood of this platform, if you cut their rewards STEEM will fail!

WRONG!

If you look at post payouts then you can only conclude that content creators are nothing more then customers for vote sellers and miners for the few curators.
Lets not kid ourselves.
Content isnt king. Content is simply an excuse for creating inflation.
Payouts arent a reflection of quality nor does STEEM attract or encourage quality.

But i think this could possibly turn that around.

I always found curation to be an extremely flawed concept detrimental to the platform with the current status quo.
With this proposal cutting author rewards we could essentially remove bot influence completely and make proof of brain an actual thing..
When Kevin Wong made his god-awful curation proposal couple months ago that would essentially destroy STEEM as a whole (i wrote about it in detail in one of my posts), he called for a increase in curation which would have led to increased vote selling after adjustment..

This could possibly do the opposite... I know its counter-intuitive, but this could actually change the STEEM philosophy across the board and actually benefit the authors who would have their author rewards cut.
There are many working parts to consider, so id need to sit and think it over before writing an indepth post like i did months ago on Kevins proposal, but when you cut author rewards and dont increase curation (since increase in curation would benefit vote sellers the most) then you reduce vote buying and reduce bot influence..

Let me know what you think.. Ill see you around.