I like the sound of that last part, and I hope to see it, but do it in a responsible way, people think that curation is a simple vote and look for plagiarism, when in fact it is a way to communicate with the content creator and help improve their publications with some tips. It's a pity that sometimes the trust is from friendship and not in a professional way, curators who do their job well, and this is what I mean about basing the curation on the content and not on the user, that is, if you don't like him, forget that, the value is to the content, the personal stuff take it out to the trash like every night and that's it.
I thought with this HF the whales wouldn't care about the rewards already given on some posts, it seems the $$ standard on votes is still handled the same. It's like there is an imaginary limit as there is no penalty on curation, if you think it deserves more do it. Votes were supposed to be more selective according to taste, but everything is still the same in that perspective, anyway, I don't know what to expect again in this HF, for now I just observe and offer myself as a curator to whoever needs it.
I'd downvote some poems if I disagree with the rewards it's getting especially if these were just DeepL conjured poetry that the English equivalent got botched. But then there are better ways to use the DV mana than pure rewards disagreement, like downvoting actual plagiarized posts and spam.
The idea that people with stake should assume a role because they got stake is something that doesn't sit well with me. Granted their votes do influence how much rewards the author already gets, this is still a social blockchain and if anyone with stake decides to support another user despite the rewards on the post, that is their freedom if they want to be a community giver or just want to be tied to a social circle. The same freedom one can afford with little stake on their accounts, if I like someone I'd upvote them just cause and if they got content within my interest pumped out, even better.