In the publication industry, generally the book writer or the article writer gets a very small amount of the total business of the book or the ad revenues from the article. It is the marketing agency which gets a significant chunk of the profits (whether it is amazon or apple or even learning market places like Udemy).
In this case of Hive and its tribes, the publication becomes trending if and only if it is voted by the whale. Hence, indirectly the whales do the marketing for you. So going by the logic of the centralized industry and fiat world 50/50 looks correct.
Secondly, the tokenomics depends upon the whales, since they are buying the prices of the tokens are supported and we are all motivated to make more contributions.
@onealfa is one the investors who helps in stabilizing the prices of the #pob tokens in the hive markets. They will invest their money only if there is an "opportunity" to make more money.
50% curation creates that economics around the content.
This helps the content creators as well. Just imagine, if the whales don't vote on any content as the curation is only 25%, then will the contributors be able to earn even the current rewards at 75%.
In tokenomics, whales occupy the highest position and by reducing the rewards we are probably disturbing the whole economy built around content generation.
Just this was what I made in a comment in an article in @onealfa, it will be interesting to see the price of pob when money is no longer coming from Lithuania.