The other use case which does not reflect your reality is that of mega-curators like @steemstemand @utopian-io. They are arguable some of the most effective crap-sorters and their entire model of work would not be possible without fractional votes.

From my perspective, those are two of the biggest crap sources most of the time. Utopian's rules basically mean that it is far more effective to write a cryptocurrency-adjacent crap application, hype it up as much as possible, and then do little bits of update which don't actually represent anything meaningful, then it is to write content which is intended to be evergreen and educationally useful. Steemstem is an almost incestual curation group, promoting writers within their small circle of acceptable voices for the most part and occasionally finding posts which are on STEM subjects elsewhere, but nowhere like consistently or well rewarded.

But that said, I am perfectly happy with them doing what they do on the blockchain. Thrilled, even. I want there to be a multiplicity of communities who want different things and have come together however they like. It thrills me to the bone that there are groups with whom I have serious disagreements in terms of the content that they promote doing what they do. In theory, that means that there could/should be communities which promote, curate, and reward content that I'm interested in.

Except that's not really the case, because the tools to do so don't really exist or are very difficult to deploy. In fact, in the case of Utopian, the best part of that communities toolset was the web-side UI that would present only Utopian-content, meaning that if you wanted Utopian content, split up by what type it was, it all you needed to do was go to their website, click on a header, and there it was – easy and simple to examine and stream and enjoy.

It would have been very nice if Utopian had devoted themselves to, as part of their mandate, making that web app mobile and easy to set up for any community that wanted to curate its own type of content. That would've been great.

That never happened.

We are in absolute agreement that the ability to scale voting percentage is a great tool for all users and allows a multitude of different ways of interacting with content on the blockchain that would not otherwise exist. We are 100% together on that idea.