Valid point, and what is considered quality content is subjective of course.
But the point remains that most of the upvotes is not done on basis of the content, and this is the main problem as that is what curation is intended to focus at. If people vote based on popularity that is okay, but when people blindly vote whatever has the biggest payout then that is not healthy for the system. And those who participate in this 'flaw' of the system fully knowing what they are doing and how it works, are not helping and in fact hurting the ecosystem and diminishing trust in the platform.
The fact that things work now is meaningless, since Steemit is super new. Any value that it has is mostly speculative still, and could vanish in a puff of smoke if public trust in the platform/blockchain wavers. I just don't want that to happen. And you can just take a look around to gauge public opinion already: these problems are brought up many times. I kind of believe it's why the price of Steem hasn't done much lately.
"most of the upvotes is not done on basis of the content, and this is the main problem"
Agreed. We need to figure out a way to make the curation formula make it most profitable (and not prohibitively more difficult) to vote for quality content. I have begun considering options that would avoid taking more of the reward pool, such as also rewarding rep from curation (or a separate curation rep that affects your rewards from doing so), or some other way to incentivize users to curate better.
I'd like to make it so that users wouldn't want to self-vote out of economic self-interest.
"since Steemit is super new. "
I'm not disagreeing with you, but in crypto terms, Steem is actually more mature than most of the market cap list, and survived it's first 97% death spiral drop. That's one reason I'm here.