Well, this, of course, is from a narrow perspective, mine. A little fish on Steemit. The hardest part about getting a whale vote is not getting one the next time. Especially in the beginning, later you learn if you write something good and the right person sees it it happens.
Then you know of other little guys who are in the Whales circle. They continue to get the vote even for some little post of really little value to many people. (again my limited view)
Your question:
Could you elaborate what drawbacks of such approach do you foresee?
Here goes:
It would piss me off and probably other people too. The thought would be why do you let someone curate that upvotes things you do not agree with?
Suffering withdrawal from not getting another whale vote is an actual vote is an actual thing but there are plenty of whales in the sea.
But if a voting power will be spread among 20 trusted experts... there is much higher chance that one of them will come back next time.
From my perspective... this looks exactly the same. But I do not believe whales are doing that on purpose... in my opinion many of them are doing that mostly because finding new good authors is really hard.. so they prefer to avoid the pain of looking for... and they decide to reward an author which they know, which is above average.
But this is a problem, because this author have less and less reasons to produce better and better content... because he gets rewards anyway. That's why I do not like an idea of auto-upvotes.
I agree with that. But once again... this is an option, which nobody have to use knowing what a reaction of people can be. But in my opinion, this is nice to have feature.
I am sure you will do what is best. You have earned my respect by talking about solutions instead of leaving. :) Wishing you much more success.
I like your responses they are reasonable. I do think people make friends and there is nothing wrong with supporting your friends. :)