I don’t understand why you are not concerned that people are apparently not always voting for the content which they like the best, but instead for the content they think can give them the highest curator rewards? I am doubting that you have understood deeply enough the various concepts and impacts of this proposal.

Without my proposal, the voters have a mathematical incentive to vote on only the highest payout posts, in order to maximize their own curator rewards.

The point is voters are being incentivized by the curator rewards to not vote on the most relevant content, but rather on the content that other whales have voted on. This apparently causes a swarm vortex effect where all the votes get sucked towards what ever got the early momentum, regardless if that blog post was not so much better in quality than all the others.

Granted I am not sure that everyone is voting to maximize their curator rewards. But if say two whales who have 3 million Steem Power voted for a blog post, then many others will vote for it, because not only their curator rewards will be higher for doing so than wasting their vote on another blog post, but also because that blog post being at the top of the listing will also cause it to be seen by EVERYBODY more often.

Hypothetically my proposal not only divvies up the curator rewards by like-mindedness, it also divvies up what people see at the top of the listings so not everybody sees the same top ranked blog posts.

In the abstract, my proposal is about adding more degrees-of-freedom to the ranking system in all aspects of it.