I don't want to see false prophets. But that is all I'm seeing. You can't pick and choose which aspects of proof of brain suit the platform for you and which that don't. If we are to work honestly with the system as designed, then we must stick to proof of brain in all its purpose which include socialising the allocation of rewards, providing incentive for honest authors to have the best edge of getting organically discovered by as many stake holders as possible.
Rent seeking delegators don't care about the cause, only the largest acceptable return that society deems morally sound. Right now, it seems like a huge loss compared to the 100% (or close to) return they enjoyed before, but it is still far too high for basically doing nothing. And as long as there is over allocation of resources to that endeavour, there will be (as we have here) people quick to gobble up that "opportunity".
The problem at the end of the day is that morally culpable or not, the end result is still that it undermines proof of brain which is what you advocated so strongly and now I advocate so strongly.
You can't force stakeholders to personally cast each vote at the individual level.
But we would much prefer it if their stake is used for honest voting rather than vote selling.
And that's exactly what we're getting now with OCDB.
All that stake that use to be used for content indifferent vote selling is now being used to pass value to content creators according to the subjective appraisal of their content.
They use to do a lot of damage, now they're doing a lot of good. It's a huge win for the platform.
This