I kind of was saying the same thing (https://steemit.com/blockchain/@treeleaves/current-cryptocurrencies):

Social media weight should never be according to buying ability but by merit. Altho being 'rich' may help you popularize someone, it shouldn't represent popularity or legitimacy.

My idea here was that those who want to buy the power to influence, so be it. But there should be a separate curation weight that helps the system determine what articles are of value (to humans). So you should be able to buy the power to make something possibly look popular, to which users may respond and actually make it so. But in rewarding curators for being first or close to first, Steem should determine the value of the article and thus the reward only by curation weight. This also may mean "reward[ing] accurate predictions of future payouts" as dantheman has said (https://steemit.com/steem/@steemitblog/curation-by-prediction-market-proposal). I said that too, but he was first. I said: "What if the curation reward was based on how people react to it over time, such that finding bad material quickly punished you eventually and vice versa."