You bring some valid points @len.george let me attempt to address them.
There is a daily pool reward that is split with everyone who is participating of the platform, as a matter of fact if you use http://steem.supply/@len.george you can see the information on the pool and your assigned reward.
If there are more users on the platform, technically speaking the pool would be split among less people, but the amount of money generated daily would also be less, and the price of steem would also be lower. A small website/platform would attract less investors and speculators thus plummeting Steem down to the cents, as it was before.
The decision of what is a good post or a bad post is of course a thing of consensus, it would be illogical for me to think that an algorithm could identify something beautiful or something ugly. But plagiarism and youtube copy paste, or even one liner posts don't require much analysis.
thanks for stopping by, cheers mate
How does a bot decide who to vote on?
Does the number of bots increase the size of the website/platform?
Do the intending investors know that half of the voting is done by bots?
If each PERSON had a vote and at the end of the day the rewards pool was divided by the number of votes, that would be the payout for that post. These would be added up and paid out weekly.
Hopefully the PEOPLE would read before they voted, if it was a good post they would vote, if they thought it was crap they would pass onto the next post.
That way the worth of the post would be fairer rather than having a bot vote because it was written by a known name.
The exception would be like cheaterbot to check on duplication/ copy past type posts to make sure they get caught.