If we're going to discuss taking rewards from content creators from the Reward Pool and giving it to curators, then there should be a discussion about implementing a system for different sorts of curation types.

A binary upvote system that makes someone a curator is also the issue that makes the curation system weighted by the upvote-bot issue, which is why this discussion is being had to begin with.

There are different aspects to curation, which is ultimately determining whether something is quality content or not. Here's a non-exhaustive list in no particular order of importance of the curation process :

1. Determining entertainment value
2. Determining usefulness of information
3. Spellcheck and Grammar check
4. Determining expertise level of information
5. Determining readability (Just because someone is an expert, doesn't mean they actually know how to communicate that expertise).
6. Determining what sort of category the information may also belong in, aside from what it was initially listed in.
7. Are there any real Gold nuggets that only a human can determine, that makes it stand aside from a bot?
8. Determine whether the content is more technical or opinion related.

The point of this list is to show that humans, not bots, are much more involved in the process of curation, and the specialization of that curation should be rewarded by the work put in.

Perhaps an unofficial position, or a curation reward breakdown process which people can get those specialized positions for the work they put in to earn those curation rewards. Maybe positions like Curation-Witnesses.

At this point, I'm just spitting out suggestions. So the curation isn't so binary: if you upvote you get rewards. If you don't upvote you don't get rewards.