I don't think we're at disagreement here. But your example hammers at the crux of the issue.

10 other users with 1M each (purchased no less) would be far preferable to the foundation deploying 30M to a handful of people with near zero skin in the game.

Unlike those with BLURT/BP that they have not purchased, those who paid for their influence have skin in the game. And this is why I discussed the foundation curation accounts alongside the ad-hoc curation initiatives run by people who have publicly defended acting in what I consider a negative way (entitlement to two full votes on their own posts).

If people who have skin in the game can also damage their investment by acting overly selfish for short term gain, then surely those with even less skin in the game should be held accountable and scrutinised?

Another perspective worth considering:

If I have a working product, and my aim is to attract, onboard, and retain as many users as possible, then why wouldn't I approach the foundation for "support" instead of just buying the influence myself? Because that is the message that is being signalled right now.

Again, I have answered your questions, and you have answered none of mine.

How much active BP is there, and what percentage of that is the foundation?

Like I mentioned in my post, I am not against deploying foundation funds to encourage activity - quite the opposite - I simply want it to be a little bit at a time, and overall, not more than 50% of the active voting stake.