you know.. there are a lot of people and groups who spend a lot of time curating, real curating not racing to vote curating, without regard to curation rewards. They are the people who will bring the good content to light.
I am more in support of @meesterboom who went out on a limb and suggested the elimination of curation rewards to stop the vote selling.
https://steemit.com/steemit/@meesterboom/thinking-out-the-box-curation-rewards
Elimination of curation rewards would not stop the vote selling. Vote selling is a direct monetization of the voting power (where the voting party receives some or all of the expected author rewards in advance of their vote). Since it's a dutch auction style format each voting round, the price of upvotes is actually set by the buyers.
Increasing the curation rewards will decrease the amount vote buyers are willing to bid for upvotes. Since the curation portion of the bid-bot revenue model is much less dependable than the buyer bid (and would continue to be undependable after a move to 50/50), increasing curation rewards would actually decrease the profitability of bidding bots, encouraging voting power and delegation to move to actual curation.
you forget that those groups that do a good job (like @ocd and @curie) are incentivised to do so. They are employees and their pay comes from curation return.
I read the suggestion when he posted, it won't work as it means the curators can't grow, only the content creators. It is a lopsided argument that doesn't consider the ecosystem as a whole.