Before I breakdown my views on what will be the result of changing curation to an 50/50 split between author and curator, here is a link for those of you who may not have seen it yet.
I would also like to thank Dan for being one of those who have been lucky enough to receive some of his curation bots vote.
I am assuming due to the fact changes are made around here based on size of stake that this is probably a done deal as those who would benefit in the short term directly from this would be those with the largest stakes.
In the video, Dan makes mention of the fact if we were to increase the curators payout to equal that of the author that it would create a new system whereby whales and others who delegate their stake for maximum profit to vote bots would begin curating again. I don't see this as what will happen, for this reason. As one who personally curates, I agree with Dan that it is time consuming. Those with large stakes would literally have to spend all day on their computers curating and voting. With my small stake it takes me hours daily, so I understand his position on this. But this agreement is exactly why I don't see much changing in the way of how larger stakeholders for the most part conduct their business. Time is limited regardless of how a curation split occurs.
As far as the delegations to the vote bots, with their haul from the pool increasing it would actually increase what they could afford to pay out, as they would in effect be doubling their take on the back side of their business model.
Next, I would like to address the author side. I realize many do not do this, but there are still many like myself who will spend 5-15+ hours researching a post to get facts straight and have references to provide. The idea that those who benefit from my research deserve an equal share doesn't sit right. Because of this it would act as a carrot if you would to reduce some of the quality posts, reducing more to the average here's what I cooked for breakfast or smoked in my bowl type. Not that there is anything wrong with those, however as my researched posts don't appeal to everyone, those type of posts definitely are not the same level of enrichment. Here is a study showcasing in a roundabout way what I am talking about.
It seems to me that many who come here and fall away do so because they tend to post low effort work, such as memes and the newest strain of weed, etc. Coupled with the fact they are unknown, have so little resource power they can barely interact if they even thought to do so (before resource credits many simply posted and didn't understand no one knew they were here in the sea of posts they flung their little effort into).
One of the biggest challenges a new person coming runs into is breaking not only into the circles that would be interested in them, but the fact their vote is dust. Zero. Nothing. And nothing doubled is nothing. The proposed curation increase would do nothing for newer people to the community.
To put a final perspective on this from the perspective of self publishing, say on Amazon. The typical Ebook sells for 2.99 on there, the authors cut 2.07. Using my latest post that paid out ( I do well as far as posts here imo, so I am above the average experience), it received roughly 6.75 Steem if you convert the SBD to power up as I do. That's roughly worth about 2.83. Splitting 50/50 would have dropped that payout from 6.75 to roughly 4.5, valued at roughly 1.89. Meaning that I could self publish a short work and receive more from 1 single sale than that post. Pointing this out merely to put some extra perspective on this.
I understand that your stake is invaluable to the success here, but I question how much an authors is. Because there is a point where those of us who put more than average effort into our posts will understand the system wants much less. Deciding that readers of the work get the same percentage as the author/researcher is that point it feels to me.
Like I mentioned at the top. This will benefit those whose vote is what decides. And I am not aghast at the idea. I have done better than many here, and am thankful. But I do know the day those who may be interested in my work receive the same as I do for spending 20 minutes reading what took me 10+ hours to compile, those posts will be drying up and change into quickly spun breakfast posts too.
In the larger scheme of things, I don't believe Steem will shoot to the moon because of blogging, but because programmers match solutions to preexisting businesses that will enable them to become more profitable. But I do think we need to see this for what it is. An effort to draw more investment into the blogging site, as those who set their favorites to autovote or sell their vote, they are likely to continue on. Those who will lose the most are the research authors and newcomers whose hill will be a little steeper as more money for less input other than wallet value flows upwards.