@dreemsteem

I agree. 100% and you have a full vote from me on this. It took me more than 18 months to reach my current status and with already minimal returns on my posts which are set to 50/50, I don't relish the idea of further shrinkage. I was plankton with HF20 and thanks to a delegation from @lynncoyle1 was able to build up a little again and return it when she needed it for someone else. The current structure already makes it difficult for newbies to get going - so much so if they have a great introductory post and respond/engage with comments as all "good" Steemians should, they run out of Mana so quickly and it takes days to replenish.

The result:

Loss of momentum, disillusionment and another wasted account.

I, too, do not believe that the increase in curation rewards will result in better quality. Nor is it going to address the issue of buying votes. On the contrary, I think it will have the opposite effect: those who can afford to buy the votes, will. The same applies to the downvotes - they are not going to stop; nor is the spam. Let's be realistic, the Steemworld is simply a microcosm of the real world and full of folk who will, can, and do, find a way to buck the system. How this is dealt with is a governance matter over which my friend @quillfire has opined, some would say, ad nauseum, but give him more than his due: he’s thought about it, said it and it makes sense. More sense than what is proposed by HF21. And no, he didn’t tell me to come over here and sing his praises….

Another point: we support our mates - that's also human. We support posts that they enjoy and/or which resonates for us and them. That's also human. You can change the technology as much as you like, but in the end, it's designed by humans for humans and most of us have feet of clay. I know I do.

If I am offered the opportunity to get an upvote from a whale if I post a link on his twitter feed or on one of his posts, will I pass it up because it may or may not resonate for him? Hell, no. Why, because that single vote will double, triple or even quadruple a pay out. For someone who puts time and effort into long posts for a pay out that is sometimes less than $1, well, you catch my drift.

Lastly, on the issue of quality, there are so many different views on quality which is an entirely subjective matter, and even if one were to set criteria for quality, these are subject to interpretation. Let’s look at Demming’s definition of quality, viz., fit for purpose and it begs the questions: what purpose and whose?

From what I have read, and I admit that the tech stuff is entirely lost on me, so I deal in principles rather than technicalities, I have to agree that HF21 will benefit the benefactors and not the intended beneficiaries.

@fionasfavourites

PS I am calling over @nickyhavey, @blockurator, @cheese4ead, @bengy, @zekepickleman and @thekittygirl in the hopes that they will add their 2c worth.