The system allows people to be either professional/strategic curators (trying to predict what others will like) or consumer/revealing curators. The former are doing it to make money. The latter are doing it in order to "buy" more of what they like by revealing preferences and adjusting incentives for both content creators and professional curators. Regardless of which role you choose to play (and it needn't be entirely one or the other), there is value to reading (or at least skimming/reviewing) content. That is only my view, though, you may reasonably disagree. 

It is clear though, that relatively late curators do not make significant (if any) money from curation rewards, and according to the system design should either be consumer curators or not vote at all. Whether people actually behave in that manner I can't say for sure, but to the extent they don't, the system design is not at fault.

This is reply to smooth reply:

The thing is that voting for things that one likes is like being a nice guy. It's good for everyone but bad for the curator. 

If I understand the mechanics correctly we are creating a tragedy of comments, instead of preventing it. It is profitable to abuse the public resource for ones benefit. If that is the goal then it's a good design.

The question is what is the purpose of the curation system? If the purpose is for people to reward content they like, then I think the design works against this purpose.

A big part of the problem is that curators aren't paid enough.  The system was originally envisioned/created with a 50 50 split between curators and authors, now its gotta be close to 90-10 in favor of authors.

It shouldn't be more profitable for a whale to create a sock puppet account and upvote it than it is for them to curate honestly  (which, ultimately, i think thats where these accusations are going).

Respectfully disagree, especially about this post which not only made hyperbolic. unproven, and very likely untrue claims about @msgivings being an AI, but more  importantly made similarly flimsy accusations and inappropriate demands against another user who, at least up to the point of this confrontation, is still active. 

I will not condone this form of bullying and harassment. It is absolutely appropriate to flag it and I will continue to do so if I see it happening again.

>I think "witch hunt" is a bit over the top. 

But she turned me into a newt!

I agree.