the solution is to increase curation rewards to 50%

WE should change the formula first give it a few months then Revisit. The formula is the main problem not curation rewards. I think the new formula would help.

@abit  Like you said bots are not inherently bad. I would have no problem with bots if they were able to vote for what people like. Unfortunately the only way to know if someone actually liked something it's to read the content, something a bot can't do. Sure bots can screen content but they can't send the info to your brain yet.

I don't see how a more linear curation rewards curve would solve the issue I mentionned above..

I am in favor of linear curation rewards and also authors rewards. To me self voting is solved by downvoting not penalizing everyone's post.

Removing steem power does not eliminate voting. You can have the vote weight based on how much steem you have in your wallet.
Steem power smart contract was done to prevent double voting but you can prevent double voting in another more elegant way ( the weight of the vote would include steem that was in the wallet for more than 7 days which is the voting period) This would prevent double voting and people wouldn't have to lock any funds.
Its been discussed in this thread https://steemit.com/steem/@furion/steem-as-a-digital-currency

Nesting limit. Replying to your post.

So in summation: You believe that voting (which is not curation) is, "the whole point of steem," but you don't think it deserves to be explicitly rewarded.  Instead, you believe that voters (who are not curators) should be conscripted into service for the authors and steem-holders to gain profits and ROIs?

Personally, I cannot subscribe to a philosophy that permits one class of stakeholders (authors) to behave parasitically towards another (voters), so it seems that we just have a fundamental disagreement of ideas.  I wish you a good evening.

I didn't say voting I said " curators".  There is a nuance there.  Voters and curators are not the same thing.  Voters vote for the content that they like,  curators vote for the content that pay the most.

>So in summation: You believe that voting (which is not curation) is, "the whole point of steem," but you don't think it deserves to be explicitly rewarded. Instead, you believe that voters (who are not curators) should be conscripted into service for the authors and steem-holders to gain profits and ROIs?

I believe that the current curation rewards system is doing a lot more harm than good.
If you know a system where curation doesn't involved robots and where people are actually voting for things that they like then I' ll revise my opinion.

>Personally, I cannot subscribe to a philosophy that permits one class of stakeholders (authors) to behave parasitically towards another (voters), 

This is non sense, voters are also stakeholders.