I would disagree strongly, however, with any protocol changes exempting stakeholders from curation duties. Our chain already enables this use case in a few ways. The easiest, and least damaging I think, is delegation to curation projects like Hive account@curangel.

Thanks for the feedback.

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?

Delegating to Hive account@curangel (or similar delegation aggregators) simply creates a new (or more powerful) whale upvoter, whereas my solution would empower all manual curators with a greater upvote voice. I do not have a dog in this fight, btw. This is just my $0.02 suggestion on how to allow large stakeholders to willingly and openly contribute to decentralizing the manual curation process rather than further centralizing it.

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