It doesn't matter. But I know you don't value outgoing vote effectiveness and think that only returns exist, we've been through that before, so there's probably not a lot of point in continuing.
However if you'd like to collect some evidence on whether 50% curation really does drive voting, I outlined a method here.
Oh, is that right? What else can you tell me about what I value?
The issue here isn’t that it “drives voting” but that it further/better incentivizes investment/staking.
What is it that we want during growth phases? More investment and skin-in-the-game curating, or more collecting and dumping of the currencies by non-invested users looking for quick paydays?
And in the long-term, do we want a larger crowd of content consumers curating content and growing their investment? Or should we prefer a smaller crowd of content creators who publish uninteresting posts and never network?
We already have a lot of dissatisfied users in the latter group. It’s obvious to me why they have trouble making money - and it’s not because the economics don’t favor creators. I’d prefer growing the former group, which would eventually benefit creators even more, regardless of the general low quality of content that’s produced here.
Convince everyone who agrees with you to offer 50% curation on their posts through beneficiaries, then. It's that easy.