If stakeholders only care about maximizing their rewards, then sure. Most people will not vote for content that already is rewarded well, despite it maybe deserving more rewards. The issue mostly isn’t the system itself we have, but the behavior, attitude, the environment people have been living in their entire lives without thinking outside what already exists, but shaping and molding every new model someone makes to fit those same old ideas of maximizing profit without ever trying to strike the balance.
You are right, big stakeholders probably have no time to curate ten times a day. But when you say a smaller stakeholder might not care of the success of Hive, you are wrong as they are our worker bees and they are the ones who truly care about the content Hive has and they are the ones curating 10x a day trying to succeed on this platform, being part of it and grow their own stakes and help others do the same.
Take a look at what the @curangel project is doing. Curation project where big stakeholders can delegate their stake and tiny worker bee curators search all over for content to reward. Now the returns aren’t of course what you will get from curating 10x times a day by yourself hitting each post exactly at the right time, but it does help the entire system. Delegators are rewarding content that has been chosen and seen by the human eye, curators get a small cut from curation rewards for their submissions and effort, and delegators (stakeholders) get the rest, and of course authors get a tiny push at least as well. If a system like Curangel would get more delegations or even if there would be more projects similar to it, then our platform would truly push the great content up top in a truly decentralized way. And while it isn’t about maximizing rewards, it somehow strikes the balance, in my opinion.