Regardless of whether we agree or disagree, creating dialogue about ways to improve the ecosystem is my goal. Thanks for helping with that!

And thanks very much for your reply! I agree that dialogue on these things is important. I recognise that not everyone has the same ideas and that's fine.

I do admire the goal of decentralisation and certainly, we do not want centralised curation. However, there are many projects to choose from, each with different criteria and rates of return. The space is open and there are no barriers to entry; a new curation project can be started by anyone. I believe this more than mitigates any concerns about centralisation; of course not everyone has to agree there.

If we are already allowing stakeholders to circumvent the curation process, why not make it so that it increases the influence of ALL manual curators rather than just delegation aggregators?

This is a great question. I actually do think it would be a mistake to distribute the increased voting power among the entire body of voters. Curation is more than just finding posts that seem good to us. It involves combating plagiarism, fraud, misinformation, and value extraction schemes, and that's hard work. Everyone can vote, but not everyone is a great curator, and I think the best thing most large stakeholders can do for the platform (and, therefore, themselves) is to delegate those responsibilities, not just to anyone, but to a team of professionals who have a good eye and know, frankly, "every trick in the book" by now.

I absolutely would not want to discourage anyone who actually wishes to curate by themselves with their own stake. But if a large stakeholder is not going to curate, they should at least be held responsible to delegate the responsibility to a party or parties they select. If they don't wish to do this, they can always forego curation rewards, but as they say, "there is no such thing as a free lunch."