As a 'non-fan' of the current curation algorithms, I also suggest a complete overhaul is needed. Giving authors more choice in who receives a reward can only serve to increase the size of the circle jerk (friends helping friends). I think it should be set up more like a lotto system where all/any votes has an equal chance of earning. As an example, say you have 10 total upvotes cast on a particular post. 20% of these voters would earn say 50% of the curation reward and the other 8 voters would receive the remaining reward, as a scaled percentage... all randomly selected. After all, all 10 voters DID show up, didn't they? This could mean that the either the first or last voter to show up would have an equal chance of receiving the largest prize. Why should any one of them be favored because they were more "timely" as compared to all other voters? Many of us have "lives" to live and can't simply camp-out at a keyboard to play ring the brass-bell all day long. An upvote is an upvote whether it is cast at post+1min or post=+2days. Personally, I can't read every post from everyone on my feed everyday, all day, let alone interact with them. A random lotto-type set up would encourage more curation and participaton in discussions, increasing one's odds of getting a more fair slice of the reward-pool pie.