I think your proposal is a vast improvement over present practices.

"The difficulty has always stemmed largely from the fact that any curation formula must be expressed mathematically, and this gives voting bots a distinct game-theoretical advantage that forces humans to use them or be left behind."

"In the past, I've suggested admittedly convoluted ideas because there seemed no simple solution."

There is, however, a simple solution: zero curation rewards.

Curation rewards, as you point out, cannot be made immune to financial manipulation. Thus, they should not exist. They aren't necessary to encourage voting. Most every vote cast is cast without regard to curation rewards - except those deliberately intended to game rewards, and those votes directly contradict the purpose of curation rewards as stated in the white paper.

I have given up actually trying to convince anyone to undertake rational proposals to improve Steemit's social media potential. Those with SP to effect changes aren't interested in changes, and have created the situation that exists on purpose, so they might profit.

However, changes are afoot. Steemit will soon face not only competition for rewards for content social media platform, it will face a Fakebook with weaponized LTC.

Who do you think will win this battle?

Invest accordingly.

This is a much better idea than I can convey, however, it is still gamable, and I still reckon zero curation rewards will actually fix the problem of financial manipulation - which is why neither will be undertaken. Anything which improves distribution of Steem on the platform is counter to the profitability of the largest, mined stakes.

Thanks!