I am. Right now.

I'm open to the possibility that I'm wrong and that it's not, at least in part, an elaborate vote selling/vote trading scheme.

Whenever you're handing out votes for reasons other than your subjective appraisal of content but instead, for example, an amount proportional to their delegation or the 'share' they have of a voting account, then you're at least in part undermining honest curation. And that's exactly what I think SBI is, even if it has the most benign intentions (which could be the case).

But I'm right here to have my mind changed. Maybe a high level explanation of how the scheme works and why it doesn't effectively do what I just stated is a start. Its intentions are irrelevant (eg. discovering, supporting and retaining good writers), only its economic effects please.