So do let me know if I misunderstand, but the TL; DR would boil down to people being able to 'pass out' their curation power to other people, hence increasing the sie of their 'net' for content that might otherwise go unnoticed.
How does that inherently differ from the current setup where high value holders (whales) will trickle down their voting power naturally through uplifting content creators with their upvotes?
The 'optimum' solution for such a future implementation would be to get on the good side of as many 'vote sharing swarms' as you could, to give you optimum uplifting through votes that you and your could redirect, and through the newly created 'shared voting power' system. Quadratic trickle down economics, if you will.
If it's intended as a way to accelerate the creation of social connections and the value inherent in those, while also speeding up the widening of the curation net, then I think it's a solid first draft, but I'm not sure how it tackles the problems people might see in the system as a whole. I think those are mostly interface based or time limited in nature(and they've been getting along well, the feed system is cool!).
Yes with an addendum, which is that I believe it relies on the social graph of users as assigned by their 30 reliable curator votes. I don't believe it is simply users passing out their vote power.
You probably understand more how the system behind google works to promote content to the top based on weight and how helpful it is. I know I watched a documentary that explained it kind of like a soccer game where more "klout" was given to star players. Maybe it makes more sense to you. I usually understand something like this after a few rereads.
And while having multiple users look through content for whales like @smooth is doing may not work scaled up to a million people, having ten people looking through content and finding hidden gems is far better than one. But I agree I like your idea @spookypooky. What's your background for work?