> how you are going to profit from steem" and instead think of how " to increase the value of the platform"

New users don't care about increasing the value of the platform. Like it or not, they're in it to make profit (as are most voters and authors) (I.E. you're being paid for this article therefore you are making profit)
>They are not voting today already, 90% of votes is done by bots

That means 90 percent of author rewards are also currently given out (diversified) by bots

>How eliminating curation rewards will send authors away from the site?

I and many others would leave

>Why would the platform be any less sustainable?

Because most of the voters that give the platform its value would leave. The loss of voters would cause demand for steem to leave, and the value of steem to plummet.
>users will have more influence which will incentivize them to buy more steem power and the site will be a lot more valuable in the eyes of investors.

No, it will alienate many people who are voting to get curation rewards (causing them to leave and leave only authors) and steemit to look unattractive to investors.

>Do you really expect businesses to integrate a content reward system run by 90% bots? 

Yes, Google uses bots yet many businesses depend on their search engine.
Again, I'd recommend you read this article:
http://www.investopedia.com/university/economics/

As well as this article:
http://www.investopedia.com/university/economics/economics3.asp

> Curation ( 80-90% of which is done by bots

You've repeated this figure many times in this thread but it is wrong. Only about 20-30% of _vote power_ comes from bots (vote count is meaningless in a stake-weighted system) and even that probably understates the human influence because a lot of that voting may be _performed_ by a bot but is _decided_ by a human primarily for influence and not profit-maximizing reasons (for example deciding on their favorite posters or types of posts they want to support, or in some cases as a delegated vote decided by another human).