I'm not for or against bidbots, but I think they emerged as a response to broken incentives. If the incentives were right, I suspect that there would be much less demand for bidbots.

I think that we're not going to attract and retain users and investors for a "social" media platform if the incentives favor anti-social behavior. According to a 2018 paper, that may be the case - A game-theoretic model of Steem's curation algorithm. So, I still think that fixing the incentives should be a priority. But, maybe someone should take a more methodological approach to fixing them. "Let's try these new untested rules and see what happens" might not be an ideal methodology. While, personally, I'd guess that 50/50 rewards & n²/(n+1) would be better than the current solution, I don't think there's any evidence other than speculation that it would be any better or worse. To make a change like that, I suppose we should have some level of evidence that it will make things better.

We have a lot of smart people here. So, I'd like to see a collaborative working group form to do research into curation, and an analysis of alternatives in order to find the best set of trade-offs. Ideally, we would find a scoring method where voters are incentivized to vote "correctly". Coincidentally, along those lines, I posted Simulating a Steem curation rewards distribution that is modeled after a 2nd price auction, yesterday.