the goal behind it is to make investors experience even less dilution?
[replying from below]
My primary goal (and I have stated this all along) would be to significantly increase (by 2x) rewards for the type of activity and engagement that is most relevant to the largest share of the user base. That is voting. A smaller number comment and far, far smaller number create highly-valued long-form blog posts. By giving far more people a path to earn, even if it is only token amounts (though doubling it is certainly nice), it increases the competitive gameplay element and gets more people engaged. No one realistically expects the bulk of the userbase, with modest SP, to ever make a living from curation, but the rewards still matter.
Already we see, in this thread for example, people discussing voting strategies as gameplay, including the idea of "covering the board" as one might do in roulette. The people discussing this are not professionals making a living from curation; they are being competitive and having fun. They report earnings of 1-5 SP/day. That is engagement. Other users of course, will never be that competitive or strategic but will still like to see rewards trickling into their wallet the same way one might collect diamonds or gems or some other in-game reward (except in this case it can be turned into actual money!)
The cost of this 2x increase is a 1/3 decrease in content rewards. I see that as a modest reduction that is better spent sprinkling rewards on a much larger number of active voters than a relatively small number of posters.
Increasing curation rewards does effectively reduce dilution and thereby increase the fundamental value of SP, but that is not my primary goal in supporting it. The goal of reducing dilution could also be achieved by simply eliminating curation rewards altogether, something that has been proposed multiple times and which I have always strongly opposed for the above stated reasons.
The reason I brought up the question of dilution, is to illustrate that "upvote and earn $10" is flawed logic. The correct logic is "invest $100000 into a system that will rapidly dilute your investment (in fact by paying a huge chunk of it to a small number of very successful bloggers), upvote, and earn $10". Do you see the difference?
(I don't know if $100000 is the number that produces a $10 curation reward for an upvote, that was a made up number, in fact my guess is it may be higher.)