I have had thoughts on this also. I was a bit more extreme than you lol. My thought was to have 25% of a post total by default go to author. The rest is divided up and focused amongst the comments.
I was trying to think along the lines of "What can a human do that a bot can't?". I would say provide meaningful relevant comments to a post. I would not at all want to remove the author from the reward pool of curation though.
If the rest was thrown into comments and votes/responses for the post wether it is supportive, a counter argument etc by post readers and/or authors defending their post. Just makes an interesting way to divide the rewards from a post.
New users are encouraged to read and make statements relative to the post and if theirs is chosen they get to earn beyond what the curation rewards currently would allot them.
Bots, well they could take a stab at the correct answers, but I would think this seriously limits their use to game the system.
Great idea, I posted something similar below 25 author 25 comment 50 curate but we could flip the last two.
I don't think more "good post!" spam comments is what we need.
Comments rewards are already pretty good, the incentive is already there. It also doesn't help with the SP valuation problem.
It wouldn't be the comments themselves that get the reward, but the upvoted comments. Why I had specified the "what can humans do easily that bots cannot" line.
good post..... would go just as unnoticed as it does today. However a well thought out counter-argument to points in the post, that has the support of votes, and maybe the authors counter post to that.... it removes the bots from the equation a bit more and still allows the author to compete for more than the 25% they get by default.