I'm open to considering some delegation to @curangel. Last I had heard (perhaps incorrectly), it had stopped downvoting, which made it a non-starter from my perspective. Thanks for the info.

Where can I find a curangel "mission statement" which describes the intended criteria used for upvotes? I'm all for spreading to a tail as a method to attract new users and promote growth (with some nagging concerns that this hasn't worked out so far) but what I've seen from a lot of curation initiatives in the past, there is often a lot of emphasis on rewarding authors just for posting even if the content frankly isn't very good (i.e. it may not be complete utter trash, but no professional site would pay a dime for it, nor would it earn much if anything on revenue-share sites) and certainly isn't good enough to attract a lot of traffic to Steem-powered sites or boost the value of Steem by a sort of reputational halo effect (in fact, often the opposite).

Which I guess is a long winded way of circling back to my support for burnpost: Apart from rewarding engagement modestly (which I support and do), I just don't believe there is that much being posted on Steem that is worthy of real, monetary value. I do find a few such items occasionally, but certainly not every day.

I'd love to see more, but I just don't.