Ah, no I apologize as I misunderstood what you meant 🙂

There is no talk of the dust vote “changing” rather the discussion about the curve and how it will effect the dust was part of the discussion, which hasn’t been determined yet and may not be effected at all.

The EIP is something that many have been discussing for years, so I think they just sort of a assume everyone knows about it etc. I disagree with that attitude and think it should be explained in detail and how they see it benefiting the platform long term and have told them so.

I can say that everyone here wants Steem to be mainstream and the goals are always how to attract more people here, it’s just we need to attract all sorts of people, including investors and end users a like. Sometimes it’s hard in a decentralized environment to get the organization needed to achieve these things as quickly and wanted.

I don’t want to try to defend their proposal, as I’m really not a huge fan of how it’s being done, but in theory if all the pieces worked as they should then authors would make more.

This would be due to the fact that investors would see the value of delegating to curation efforts rather than bid bots or to spam and upvote themselves. (Due to the consequence that could come from downvotes for doing so). Also because the downvote pool would help change the abusive culture, which gives more to the rewards pool to be allocated to users.

None of this is set in stone and will not be until Steemit Inc. releases a code and sets a date for the HF, then a consensus of the top witnesses has to agree to run the code. Only then will these changes (maybe not even all of them) go into effect.

Then if it doesn’t give the wanted result, a change can be made to try something else.. this truly is an experimental platform and with that comes trial and error. The rewards mechanism currently is broken and is incentivizing abuse which is bad for everyone as well as the longevity of Steem. This proposal is an attempt to fix things.