I've heard similar thoughts about distributing the STEEM rewards between authors and curators.
Test 1#....If we reduce curation rewards to 0%, I really don't think people will be generous to give their votes anymore, considering the fact that they'll gain nothing in return.
A lot of people voting on your posts are doing so for the rewards they know they'll get in return.
Test 2#...Increasing curation rewards to 100% would most definitely reduce authors desire to make quality posts....Knowing fully well that the rewards wouldn't go to them in the end.
Great contents might reduce, spammy, shitty contents might increase.
Test 3#... Well, I think this is still fair but not so fair.
It takes a lot of thinking, writing, deleting and editing to come up with a good post....And then, in the end, I'll have to share my rewards with someone who upvoted and didn't contribute anything to the thinking spree.
Maybe, we should leave it the way it is though but then, just as you said....
We could use an economic model that renders both voting behaviour equally profitable, statistically. Maybe this is the equality that our community should be focused on. The network may have a better chance to improve when more users are persuaded to distribute wealth instead of accumulating wealth.
I do think you're making sense in this though but not until @ned or @dan sees this, I guess this may only be an illusion....
Thanks for taking out the time to write this, it was most definitely a copious read.
Cheers