If anyone were to listen to me on the subject (and they don't, which means I can safely say anything I want to), I would probably point out that "curation" doesn't mean in any other context what it means on the Steem blockchain. Not even close or near.

What it means here is that you are fiscally rewarded for interacting with the blockchain, effectively. It is a system that starts with the basic assumption that unless they pay you to use it, you won't. That the basic value proposition is a net negative from their perspective.

Anyone who has ever designed games can interpret that. More importantly is that anyone who uses the platform understands that even if they can't articulate that, and it is a persistent erosive force on the community.

That it is coupled with a user experience which is at least five years behind cutting edge in the social media space, a market in which being six months behind means you have a real problem? Is it any surprise that the heyday of Steem was two years ago or more when the payoffs, in a very literal sense, were notable money?

The present curation mechanism has a huge number of negative effects that breaking it away from any kind of reward system would improve, and not just for consumers but for developers. If they can no longer fall back on the assumption that the value of the token will motivate people to use their interfaces so they don't have to be very good, we might actually see some development on that front.

And that's not to minimize the work of SteemPeak/PeakD. They have put in a whole lot of work to bring the user experience on the Steem blockchain up to something that was acceptable around 2013. That is a huge amount of work. But it's inherently limited by the nature of the schema underlying the database which is the Steem blockchain and the mechanisms by which users interact with it.

Mechanically, the screwed up downvote system are a lot less destructive than the ultimately designed-to-fail "curation" system. In a real sense, we are protected in an ongoing way by the fact that people don't actually want to go out and find content to downvote. Not a lot of protection, but a little bit.

The downvote mechanics reward the wrong thing from people, just like the "curation" system. Part of the problem is that they tie fiscal control to a lot of mechanics which shouldn't have a financial toehold in decision-making.

I absolutely believe that it is possible to imagine better systems. I absolutely believe we should do so. I likewise absolutely believe that doing so will be no part of the efforts of any of the Steem/Hive developers because their bread is buttered by staying locked into a system that rewards behaviors that they have already developed, whether or not it serves the needs of the greater community whatsoever. Sad, but there it is.