<br>

Good content gets good rewards. Great content gets great rewards. Excellent content gets excellent rewards. 

Is this the absolute truth? Unfortunately, not. 

Due to the Delegated Proof Of Stake (DPOS) mechanism, a wide range of publications aren't rewarded as highly as other content of a similar level. We can't find complete balance with this when there are only a few humans behind the wheel of the curation efforts at the top. There is too much content to digest and reward responsibly on any given day.

The whales ultimately decide what is valuable content if you are looking at the highly rewarded articles they've voted as the "best of the best" on the platform. If only it were as simple as that.

<br>

<center>![pie.jpg](https://i.postimg.cc/150smXnz/pie.jpg)</center>
<center><sub>*image courtesy - [sheri silver](https://unsplash.com/photos/tWOt1vRvob4)*</sub></center>

---

<br>

Do you believe that curating content should be rewarded the same as producing content?

We currently have a 50/50 reward split for author and curation rewards on POB. Whenever you receive a 20 POB upvote from someone, you receive 10 POB. The voter gets 10 POB in curation rewards (roughly, I'm elementary here and not taking beneficiaries and token issuance into account). 

Consider this... if the higher stakeholders are receiving 50% of the rewards for voting, and you're receiving 50% for creating, are you ever going to build up a stake that "catches up" to the higher stakeholders?

The answer is maybe. Maybe if stakeholders sell off their curation rewards instead of powering up further. Maybe if you buy off the market and participate as well (use other curation rewards to buy off the market if you have the resources). Maybe if you have friends in higher places who can direct votes your way (you'll still not reach their level, but you'll outpace many others).

Too many maybes for me when the true value and attraction of Proof Of Brain comes from *lots of people* creating and engaging. 

<br>

<center>![pobdivider.png](https://i.postimg.cc/G3smWvLV/pobdivider.png)</center>

<br>

Proof Of Brain has started with the fundamentals of three separate projects. HIVE (DPOS structure, PoB), BTC (tokenomics), and LEO (reward split). 

If Proof Of Brain is going to differentiate itself from the downsides that the platforms above have, it will need to look deeper into the flaws that they have and adapt before the same results occur. There have already been discussions started on [automation and curation trails](https://www.proofofbrain.io/hive-150329/@felipejoys/the-answer-to-the-proof-of-brain-trails-dilemma-compromise) and how we need to find some solutions to this, so we're able to maintain the Proof Of Brain ideals in the long term.

Within the above post's shared comments, @felipejoys brings up a solid suggestion for a 75/25 reward split instead of the current 50/50.  I've been thinking about this for the past couple of days now. I've been considering how LEO currently stands with this reward split in action. 

I don't use LEO frequently, so I don't know who the leading players are there, but I know that I need to drop in a considerable investment or impress some whales if I want to get in a decent position.

Don't worry; I'm not even going to try. I'm already friendly enough with @onealfa, and he's never voted me once (well, he did once but removed it the next day). 

Even if I impress them, I'm at their mercy because they're the guys who provide the rewards for me to grow and stay on track since it's 50/50. What happens if they don't like what I have to say on this free-thinking/speaking blockchain? (lol)

<br>

<center>![pobdivider.png](https://i.postimg.cc/G3smWvLV/pobdivider.png)</center>

<br>

Anyway, here is my current pros and cons list if POB changed to a 75/25 reward split;

##### PROS
- Creators are rewarded better
- The increasing gap between high stakeholders and lower stakeholders shrinks
- More liquidity for the market
- More tokens are burned from burn posts for [those who think it's a great idea](https://www.proofofbrain.io/hive-150329/@calumam/burning-the-evidence)

##### CONS
- More liquidity on the market = more buying opportunities for HIVE/TRIBE whales (everyone really, but we know who comes out on top)*
- Less quality curation because of smaller rewards?
- Unattractive to investors looking to autovote (could be a pro)
- Faster stake growth from circle-jerking (POB -> other tribes more specifically)

These are basic points I've pondered over; they should be expanded on and challenged, not seen as definite answers by any means. 

*<sub>This isn't necessarily a black and white position. The main downside is having the existing stubborn mindsets enter into a community where there are efforts being made to change the damaging aspects of the previous models.</sub>

<br>

<center>![pobdivider.png](https://i.postimg.cc/G3smWvLV/pobdivider.png)</center>

<br>

Let me know what you think. I was going to make this into an official proposal, but I still think we need to push the discussion further along at the moment. 

In terms of importance with regards to the platform right now, I believe that distribution, automation, and curation are at the tippy top (in that order). 

Please challenge my perspective and try to make me look like an idiot if you think it's necessary. I promise I won't shun you because you've taught me some insightful lessons about myself.

<br>
<br>

---

Don't forget to write your post for this week's [POB Word of the Week!](https://www.proofofbrain.io/hive-150329/@calumam/pob-word-of-the-week-equanimity-007)

There is **525 POB** (delegations) up for grabs.


---

<center>[Ongoing POB Discussion Thread #001](https://www.proofofbrain.io/hive-150329/@calumam/ongoing-pob-discussion-thread-wc-12-04-21)</center> 
<center>[Ongoing POB Discussion Thread #002](https://www.proofofbrain.io/hive-150329/@calumam/ongoing-pob-discussion-thread-002)</center>



---

<center><sub>Posted via [proofofbrain.io](https://www.proofofbrain.io/@calumam/75-25-would-it-work)</sub></center>