I don't see how curation brings anything to the table. Like the entire tipping model, it relies on altruism. No curator is going to upvote a post that's already been upvoted, without altruism. Why are we kicking back money to the biggest stake holders when the system relies on them giving away short-term gains?

Forced curation only makes sense in a blind bidding system where that critical payout information is hidden from the curators (impossible?). Otherwise they can just game the system, but why try to game a broken lottery when you can just self-upvote? So why have curation at all?

The real suggestion in my post about it is to make curation optional on a sliding scale. Apply optional curation to posts AND resteems (referral link) to be determined by the content creator. That way any percentage could be selected by the person who actually owns the content.

It's hard to take you seriously when you just give a vague generic answer saying "Nope, that would just break everything." It wouldn't. Both systems rely on stake holders giving money away, plain and simple.

Not much is going to change either way, so the smartest thing to do is nothing, because showing the outside world that Steem is willing to drastically reallocate inflation on the whim of a few dozen people is like the worst idea ever.

I do appreciate your time in hearing me out, even if we don't see eye to eye. Thanks.