That is true, but wouldn't these passive investors just use steemauto or something similar to cast their votes? I mean, circle-jerk was here when I arrived in 2016. The bigger accounts voted for other big accounts and they literally ate the entire pie themselves. 

With steem auto, they could just vote for the authors who're known to produce content regularly to not miss out on a vote. Set it to upvote at 14 minutes or whatever and leave it. If you look at the trending pages right now, the same authors are sitting there 24/7. Pick those authors and earn **tons** of curation rewards, as they will buy votes from bid bots **after** you vote.

Hence, the rich gets richer.

---

Here's a comment from @bashadow:
> *"Most post votes are done by so called curators between 13 and 17 minutes of a post. That is not curation-that is looking to make a buck off of someone else's work - and I am fine with that being as it is an automated system."*

> *"If it should be decided to go with a 50/50 split because of curation efforts then the start time of the curation payout should be **randomized**. That will show me they really are concerned about the curation effort and not about the bottom dollar. A randomized start time of curation payout would mean simply that just because you voted for a post during the sweet spot (13-17 mins), does not guarantee you a better curation reward than someone who voted for the post on day 3 hour 17 minute 23."*

Having a randomized curation timer seems like a pretty cool idea to me. What do you think about it? Would obviously not benefit vote sellers or curators. Active of passive, as it would rely more on chance.