This kind of knee-jerk reaction to a perceived problem reminds me of the troubled days of Bitshares, where things like "The Merger" happened very quickly and turned out to be terrible ideas..
On topic: I was thinking more or less the same thing: reduce the "first-vote" advantage by allowing a grace period like you say, the exact length can be tweaked later.
I'd also like to add that I think removing curation rewards is a very bad idea, as it removes the major incentive for most people to come here and vote on posts. Everyone can't be content creators, but if they're the only ones being rewarded we will see a quick concentration of Steem Power in the hands of the top posters. Come to think of it, why should content creators be rewarded with 50% Steem Power? Creating content does not make them good curators, so to me it would make more sense to have a different distribution: 25% Steem Power and 75% Steem Dollar for posts, and 75% Steem Power and 25% Steem Dollars for curation for example.
Before removing curation rewards completely I would highly recommend tweaking the current system, perhaps using the idea above, combined with a tweaking of reward distributions between posters and curators, 25% to curators and 75% to posts for example instead of 50/50.
Agree about knee-jerk reactions (as I said elsewhere there is hardly even a userbase yet, certainly not a representative one). Interesting point about allocating the rewards differently between SD and SP.