My point is that casting votes for money isn't curation, which is casting votes for content and creators.
Yes, because when you're paid for what you do it stops being whatever you're doing and is rendered as a tainted cousin at best of what you've done.
You said previously to curators getting paid by museums:
Yep, they get paid a salary. Consider the difference in motivation that provides, instead of extracting profit from the items they promote. It's the difference between a husband and a pimp.
Sure it is, but at the end of the day, the only thing that matters is do they make money by curating? Undoubtedly, and poor curation will get them replaced I imagine, but that's also beside the point, point being that they get paid for what they do, and likewise they make money directly by their work, if they curate well they will undoubtedly ask for better pay. Exactly like artists get paid to perform, exactly like curators here get paid to perform. You though, claim that it's profiteering off the content, that by investing into the platform, staking, and voting for content to be rewarded while also being rewarded for rewarding content, that the stakeholders are extracting value from the platform and from the content, which is pure nonsense since the act of staking and the act of rewarding the reward of content is where the platform gains it's value both in the utility aspect and in speculation / price discovery aspect.