If authors try to set a high cut for curators to get more post rewards in return but the content is not good it will get downvotes, which means it'll be easier to find posts to use your downvotes on as many are having a hard time today to use theirs as a majority of big curation accounts split them up as much as possible for max ROI.
If the content is good and the curators get say 50% extra rewards they won't care about not voting on a post cause it's already "too high voted" with the addition of that 50% being linear, i.e. early voters not getting an advantage they could earn more curation rewards than voting on posts without the extra 50%.
So the idea is that authors would get the same or more post rewards even if 75% goes to curators as long as the content is good. At the same time it would encourage long form content again knowing that curators won't hesitate to stack votes - if the content is great - as lately the small % votes and big accounts not voting after other big accounts has discouraged content that requires more effort.
Most of what I wrote is in the post but hope my rewrite made it a bit more clear.
It's also called an experiment for a reason cause there's still a lot of possibilities we can't foresee of how it's going to be used or abused. Time will tell but we'll try to adapt with the best outcome for the platform in mind.
@acidyo
Yes I agree on your thoughts and points. We need to try different things. We never know which will give us success.
Wow this is something interesting part if it is like that obviously people will we definitely using this service.
Let's hope for the best 🙂 we all working for the betterment of the community and hive ❤️.