The problem we run into is that no matter what super linear curve we propose, many will argue for more fairness. The limit as fairness approaches infinity is linear.
This is incredibly one-sided, including as a retrospective of HF17. Some will argue for more fairness, yes (and did), but some also argue for more resistance to abuse (and did). There are valid points on both sides, but to simply take the fairness argument, extrapolate to infinity, and implement it, is to completely disregard the arguments on the other side. On what basis?
Okay, fair enough, the platform can decide that "maximum fairness" is the right goal, but there's nothing that is a given about it, as some sort of mathematical extrapolation of agreed principles.
I agree things have changed. I was in favor of trying a linear curve reward. I tend to think any super linear would be better, up to a certain point obviously.
This is so for other people too who have been supporting trying the linear curve but now have changed their mind. I know @pfunk mentioned this in comment a couple days ago.
I've stated my perspective and reasoning pretty clearly in this comment.
I know that without the support of Steemit Inc such a change have a very low chance of happening if any at all. Making my reasoning to be known is the best I can do.
https://steemit.com/roadmap2018/@steemitblog/steemit-roadmap-2018-community-input-requested#@teamsteem/re-ned-re-teamsteem-re-steemitblog-steemit-roadmap-2018-community-input-requested-20171117t011341724z