I think that we must do away with any silly notions that curation on here is anything like curation in a gallery or museum. Curation is another word for ranking, for review and opinion on the value of an item, and so looking at it as a job, or as work is a stretch and I think the reason it is such a chore is the reverse auction aspect of it. Curation should be fun, it should require minimum consideration and as such it should not be a mentally taxing task at all. The only reason it is so is because of the reverse auction implementation of it which makes people try to compete with one another, a scarcity mindset of "if you're not first your last" . If we remove that aspect what will probably happen is that curation will become less of a chore and much more fun. With that in mind, curation rewards are more important to the system than author rewards, as content on the internet is so saturated and it will only continue to become even more so, and I doubt there's anything that can compete with curation rewards for the importance of investing/ powering up, I mean I'd like to hear anyone make a case contrary to that.
You're very correct that curation rewards produce something other than curation of a museum collection, or upvotes of posts on other, non-tokenized social media.
That's not what I said at all, nice try twisting "curation on here isn't what museum and gallery curators do, curation on here is simply rating/reviewing/giving opinions on items" into "cURaTiOn reWaRdS aRe BaD mkaay". Your nonsense theories that people will invest money to reward others in the hopes that others will do the same and buy in to reward others exclusively also are as idiotic and removed from reality as they get. I defy anyone to fathom something more fantastic than that, that investors will lock in stake without curation rewards or any other return besides the hopes that it will increase demand for the tokens, which is as idiotic nonsensical as it gets. It's no wonder why no one has done such a thing in the entire history of mankind, because it's idiotic.
Reddit, Fakebook, Insta, and so on, so forth. All these places feature actual curation without any financial reward. You here confuse investing and ROI as somehow being only possible via curation rewards, and completely fail to grasp that since long before history began investors relied on capital gains for ROI. Despite no rewards existing on legacy social media, it is provable that people curate on those platforms, and flock to them to post despite no author rewards existing either.
Steem potentiates financial returns from using social media, and gaining author rewards depends neither on curation rewards, which demonstrably discourage actual curation in favor of profiteering due to financial incentive, or stake weighting, which again encourages profiteering rather than content creation.
Your inability to grasp factual reality consistently produces hilarity. I am always entertained when I bother to read your drivel. It further allows my pointing out said factual reality to be contrasted by the example of absurdity you provide.
Thanks again!