If I give an example to understand this better; When the author chooses 50% @null as the beneficiary in the content he created and his content receives a total of 1000 blurt awards, half of it, 500 blurt, needs to be burned. Of the remaining 500 blurt, 250 blurt, which is half, should go to the author and 250 blurt should go to the curator.
this way nobody would vote on posts with @null
The curators receive their prizes in full, while the author sacrifices theirs. If this information and calculation is correct, wouldn't the principle of equality and justice be lost?
that's how it works, but it still can be profitable for author, eg:
you set 50% null
I vote 1000 BLURT
I will get 500 BLURT, you will get 250 BLURT, without my vote you will get 0 BLURT
Of course, you will get votes from other curators, so you have to calculate what would be optimal % for you to profit from my vote
So penalizing the content creators - THE PRODUCERS that make dpos blockchain even possible -- while at the same time, enriching the blurt bureaucrat class and financial wheeler dealers. (no tax for me, but tax for thee).
Hmmm, my friend...a very big ...Hmmmm....
Posted from https://blurtlatam.intinte.org
This is not mandatory, you don't have to set @null as post beneficiary so don't call it a tax
You forgot that this blockchain can exist without any interface, author or curator, all you need to do is to keep price of coin at level which will cover costs of running nodes.