It was a great thought, but it doesn't seem to work on SteemIt. People are almost completely dependent on these heavy investors. Unfortunately HF19 isn't going to change much i'm afraid, but we'll see.

The fact that those large stakeholders have so much influence is problematic, they should be able to profit another way or additional algorithms have to be implemented to make it more fair. It's a hard problem, but i'm sure they're working on it.

Curation quality is almost completely ignored because the algorithms aren't functioning properly. Sometimes you can earn more curation rewards by voting on worse content than when you vote on fantastic content. Ideally it should be a self regulating system where curators could profit from fixing injustice instead of profiting from contributing to the injustice.

With curation mistake i essentially mean you voted differently than the average consensus. For example when you voted on a post that receives flags, you should get penalized slightly for voting on something that is rated as less than "perfect" content. Or when you end up being the only upvoter against 9 flags you should get penalized heavily (more than just losing out on curation rewards). The system needs an extra variable similar to reputation (but then actually significant haha).

Well there are curation mistakes when you would be talking about executing an optimal probabilistic strategy to maximize profits ;)