Exactly. Plus you mention about "deserving" and predictiing as though we should only upvote those who will make a lot of rewards from their posts. What I deem valuable and deserving is different than what someone else deems valuable and deserving. There are some who I always upvote and who almost always upvote me, but we don't always catch each other's posts.

The rewards can still pay out every 7 days, but after the first 7 days, the content can still generate rewards. Anyone new to the platform will search for tips and tutorials. Those month old, year old posts that have helped me so much in my first few months, deserved to keep generating rewards as new users upvote them. Some content never gets old.

It could be in the first 7 days, curators get rewards as well, but after the initial week, curators maybe get less and it's a show of cortesy to upvote past that date maybe. Or everything remains as is, curation and author rewards, just continuous payouts.

And yes, the whole voting power things is so confusing to me as to why it even exists. People are stingy with their votes because they don't want their voting power to go down. Whereas someone like me, votes and votes, especially on days I've dedicated to just being on Steemit. My voting power has gone down to 0 and I'm still voting to let people know that I appreciated their content. Sometimes I like to upvote a comment. If there is nothing else to add to the comment, instead of commenting back a generic type reply, I want to be able to upvote and let that person know I saw and appreciated the comment. Even if there is nothing to add, nothing to say. An upvote can say a lot. Leaving voting power high would make people want to upvote more.

I don't use bots, I kind of get why they exist, but I also don't. It could be so much simpler f there is no timer, no decrease. Just voting and rewards. Simple.