I've seen you talk at length with Smooth about vote selling and I echo his views. Essentially, vote selling is just incompatible with honest curation and such services completely undermine the proof of brain process of our ecosystem.
If vote selling pays better returns than honest curation, why would you expect people to curate honestly? In turn, if there are very few honest curators, what is the incentive to produce good content? These services take 100% of the voting rewards and splits it between the vote seller, service provider, and vote buyer in a way that's completely content agnostic, similar to self voting or circle jerking. And unlike the latter two, these services have a tendency to undermine real curation even more by interfering with content sorting to a greater extent.
I did not understand the part about burning 20-50% of author rewards (setting beneficiaries to 
Like Smooth did in your previous dialogue, I would also advise that you redirect your considerable business acumen to projects that would benefit the ecosystem. Perhaps a more robust curation initiative?
I understand that vote selling is currently likely by far the most lucrative business initiative, but if it remains so, it comes at the cost of virtually ensuring that we'd never correctly function as an honest content discovery and rewards proof of brain system, and would likely lead to our demise.
RE: BUILDTEAM: Corporate Social Responsibility Strategy - BURNPOST Challenge inside!