RE: A first thought about improving curation
There's usually about 40 to 70 articles per post and I try to upvote all of them.
Well @effofex, then you are clearly doing a lousy job. Because if you do that curation post 'biweekly' you should read, digest, curate and upvote no less than 140 posts at least having 10 votes daily at your disposal. ¡Grab your abacus! };)
Upvoting comments is a total different beast to contemplate here. But I can tell you that you don't need either become a willy-nilly slut spreading kisses and hugs everywhere to the point to deplete your VP until levels of 1%.
The other use case which does not reflect your reality is that of mega-curators like @steemstem and @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.
If they are such effective crap-sorters in their entire model of work, then I suppose they wouldn't have issues granting only 10 upvotes daily on prominent and really outstanding posts only. Yes, due their massive high SP I concede that they can't upvote good content at 100% of their VP. But surely they can cleverly upvote at least 20 posts daily at 50% of their VP being truly selective in what really deserves such sort of high rewards. And the next day 20 posts more and so on indefinitely.
You know, I really can't decide if you're being a deliberate troll or just an idiot. It pains me, not to be able to distinguish the two, even though Poe's Law has been true since the beginning of the Internet.
@effofex was very clear when he said that the biweekly curation post contained things that he found personally interesting, and that they usually contain somewhere between 40 and 70 articles per post, and he tries to get up votes on all of them.
Any sane, intelligent, experienced person would recognize that firstly that's a lot of posts, and secondly – they don't all show up on the same day. And they don't all show up on different days. If my experience is anything to go by, they clump, and some days you have a whole pile of them and some days you have nothing and all the time you spend reading doesn't turn up anything that you think is worth voting for. The narrower the niche, the more likely that is to happen.
And that's part of the reason that "10 votes a day" is a stupid idea. Just a ridiculously dumb idea. Some days you get 20 good articles, and the next day you may have five, and the next day you may have 30, and the next day you may have zero – and either you build a custom tool to keep track of all of the things that you've come across in the past week and automatically drop your votes at the appropriate time to maximize the impact, because that's what the system demands to be efficient, or you drop the votes when they happen and try to scale your vote percentages so that you are able to reward them when they happen.
Which, ironically, is a solid justification for a single-user vote bot. The system incentivizes automation, and so it gets automation.
They would if they get 20. And that's the problem with your idea – it assumes, and we all know what happens when you assume, that content is and will forevermore be limited, and you should only have a fixed amount of things that you can reward a day.
But that very architecture requires that you be prescient. You need to be able to see the future and know how many good articles you're going to run into in the next 12 hours. How will you ever know that? It's impossible. If I find an excellent piece of content right now, and I've already dropped nine votes on excellent pieces of content that I like, how much do I want to gamble that I won't find another excellent piece of content five minutes after this one? Because that's the gamble, that's the forced decision that your system would require.
If you want more vote selling, that's how you get more vote selling. And more bots running accounts purely for the fact that they would have more votes. And we've already discussed why you really can't stop bots interacting on the blockchain, starting with its unverifiable.
It doesn't take experience with game theory and game design to understand why this is a bad idea. All you have to do was walk through how it would actually play out in practice and you can see, immediately, where it fails.
Admittedly, this may be a talent that few people have.