The sad thing is that there is not much I can do aside from making a reply to these downvotes.
You are making this problem unnecessarily complicated for yourself, the solution is very easy: stop buying votes.
I always liked the idea that its possible to empower yourself on this platform and value smaller consistent upvotes way more compared to having to hope for the rare whale upvote.
Of course you like that idea, because in such model you're getting paid for promoting you're own content, which is a completely broken system if you know how advertisement works: those who promote are supposed to pay for it, not receive positive direct ROI. This was the reality for past 2 years, did it make the price of Steem moon? No, it didn't. The author reward pool is supposed to go to authors that the crowd decides deserves it, you don't decide you're own content's worth here like you can't decide how many thumbs ups you're content is worth in YouTube.
Instead, it's far more profitable from a curation point of view to go for the ones you know will get a ton of upvotes.
If by that you mean it is more profitable to vote on already established content creators, that is actually false. The reason being that the more auto votes start to appear around the 3-5 minute mark, the voters actually start to undermine each others curation rewards, so the more early votes they stack, the less profitable it actually becomes.
The best strategy is to find great content from yet established content producers and upvote them before others or curation guilds find them. And yes, good content will often get big votes, because there's a lot of stake curating right now. If you can't see it, you're not looking.
Just as an example of how curation groups work, making an ironic post on how great #newsteem is while what is written completely destroys the new system will instantly get curated because it's looking like another post about steem and how great it is which is the pretty much the success formula.
It's a fair point that Steem related content often gets a lot of rewards, however, non-Steem related content is also getting a lot curation. I have personally seen this change with my own post rewards.
Now, let me address the comment by @stimp1024. Purchased downvotes are not killing the idea of passive investing. It has changed the business model of bid bots, in fact, many have turned to manual curation in order to generate curation rewards to keep their delegators happy. Quality content gets rewarded and passive investors get their share. The point of the downvotes was to produce exactly that outcome where passive investors can receive passive income but not hurting the ecosystem by undermining Steem's value by allowing it to flow to the hands who have the most cash to rape the rewardpool.
Also, if a given token's only value proposition is only to get votes in STEEM, then it should not have value. The token should be able to stand alone.
The over proliferation of bid bots was of course a problem and changing Steem with a hard fork to address that behaviour was fine. However here we are talking about a complete war against bid bots and promotion of posts in full, I object to that premise.
You used that word that is so emotive "rape of the reward pool" I would prefer the word plunder which is what you actually mean. However I don't agree that applies, that is to take something for nothing. A user has for whatever reasons decided to sell their vote (actually their share of the reward pool or what happens to it) another users buys it.
Now according to the Steemit FAQ's abuse is "Selling or offering to buy votes/resteems/follows, or schemes that facilitate this." so really bid bots never should of got off the ground. However I personally think they have been good for Steem and having the ability to delegate your stake for payment, with zero risks, is in my view a big selling point for Steem. Sites like Bit Lending Club, BTCpop have not worked because of the fraud aspect.
I take your point on the bots doing manual curation to pay passive investors but I don't think HF21 went far enough with the split, I wanted a reverse or even more 20/80 to the curators. Of course its one thing to reward curation but yet another to get the right curation from the users and that alas is where (I believe) it will all fall down.
I do not believe, rightly or wrongly, that the Steem price fell because of bid bots. I think the bear market and the way steem inc was run are to blame, no real updates to the block chain or the front end either.
As per the tokens I never said that a tokens only value proposition was to get votes in Steem but that for a lot of projects that acquire a lot of SP doing so will add value to the token, for many tokens it will be the only monetary value. However isn't there a case for Steem to recognise the value a token brings in building a community on the platform.
So I am saying if that community is adding benefit to Steem then by allowing up votes from the reward pool you are rewarding the value they are bringing. I certainly believe the tribes are doing that. This shouldn't be a problem since it is the portion of the reward pool they own by their collective commitment to Steem in the form of the SP they own.
Perhaps these tokens won't stand alone I am ambivalent on that either way, my only observation to their worth was the tribe aspect (Community) they have empowered. If that leads to the success of Steem then the Reward Pool portion that is used for their value, would be money well spent. That reminds me, another thing that Steem Inc was supposed to deliver and didn't, Communities.
Actually just visited Steembottracker, not been there for a long time and there are now only a handful of bid bots, I shall be eagerly awaiting the Steem price increase that should be coming real soon.