Hello @acidyo. I appreciate your efforts in growing the hive community and ensuring that there is sanity. However, talking about the economy of project hope, you may ask what the aim of the beneficiary idea is.
The project is being used to support good contents on the blockchain. Likewise, it's being partly used to cater for some Venezuelans who are living in rather tough realities.
For a community that seeks growth, and is not depending on a whale support in the long term, measures had to be put in place to ensure that everyone contributes to the growth of the community - together. Hence, the idea of setting beneficiary in posts. It is a voluntary idea, and it can be any percentage. Considering this as vote selling is not valid, because even the payout is mostly not profitable when compared with the amount of work put into the writing.
Big curation accounts are trying, but they cannot reach every good writer on the blockchain. This is one of the duties that project hope is trying to do. Contrary to your opinion that low quality posts / plagiarism is being encouraged, members of the core team screen posts before curation. Probably more work has to be done in this regards, but that does not make the ideas of the project detrimental to the blockchain.
So are many others curating their content, is @cervantes or @blocktrades asking them to give them half of the rewards so they can grow more to support them more? You do realize what the more means here right? It means unfairly more compared to the rest of stakeholders, delegators, curators and authors. Like please learn what Hive is and how it works, I'm getting insanely tired after 100+ comments explaining why this scheme is unfair to the rest of communities and stakeholders while you guys all pull the same excuses.