Nah, if there are a million posts on the platform but he/she can only give out one vote, perhaps he/she won't vote, for the fairness, or lack of resource to review all posts to find the best one.

Boy you got me with psychic income, now I'm really lost.
I really don't agree with you, but I am open minded, maybe you are right and I am mistaken, no problem.

I understand that even less, my voting power I believe isn't even $0.01 so what's the profit in that? To make any money an article has to be upvoted by people whose votes are worth something.

There arn't many active voters. Even people who post a blog post tend to write and run, they rarely stay and read a bit (you can tell by the number of pageviews).

If the bots disappeared, there would be no upvoting at all because "active users" can't be bothered or simply don't have the time.

BTW - I think the 1% votes are stream votes. That is, there is a manual voter who is followed automatically via autosteem or streamian by other voters. The amount you get is determined by the manual voter. If they vote 1%, then all the people following automatically also deliver 1%. If they vote by a higher percentage, you get a higher percentage by the autovotes as well.

You're bringing up great point. I'm in the top 100 for the best curation score for the past 50 days so it seems I would be bias for keeping curation reward too but I tend to think we might be better off without them. It's still a very complex situation. 

I don't agree with the comment reward pool being a bad thing. I think this will be a good thing. I was skeptic at first but I'm not exciting to see what will come out of it.