Oh, for goodness sakes, not again. Where to begin? Obviously, I can't respond to your whole article in one comment, but a few points.

-1-
When the whitepaper was written, people could be rewarded for witnessing, market making, mining, curating, or authoring. After hf17, only witnessing, curating, and authoring will be left. When you take away curating, how far behind do you think the author rewards will be? Your arguments all apply to authors, too. People write for free on other web sites, and the rewards distribution changes the things that they post and write about. Why shouldn't authors be satisfied with the same long-term increasing value of their steem power that you expect the voters to be happy with?

-2-
Writing a bot and keeping it running is not "passive investing." It's taking an active interest in the content on the blockchain. To get a reward, the bot needs to predict what people will vote on. And yes, someone who invests the time and resources it takes to do that well should be rewarded. The better the voting, the bigger the reward.

-3-
Look at the "Blockchain Operations Distribution" chart at the bottom of this page - https://steemdata.com/charts

And your conclusion is that the author rewards should stay and the curation rewards should be eliminated? That slice of curation rewards is an awful lot of unhappy customers to alienate all at the same time. Who, exactly, do you think is going to read the articles if just the writers are still here using the site?

-4-
Finally, the 1% voters are not manual voters. They're bots in pursuit of something very similar to your own goal. Here are the announcements. And Dan's comment is very disappointing (frightening, actually...)