I have been following along the discussion as well. I'm not too fond of the 'rich get richer' phrase because it only tells half of the story. The poor also get more. I agree the values can't be compared in absolute terms but still, I find it a one-sided representation of the facts as I understand them. The rich, i.e. the ones that have invested more, that took risks earlier (or just happened to be the lucky first miners) will get more than those that have not invested at all. That sounds reasonable. If it would be the inverse I don't think it would be fair for the rich either.

I do agree with you on the fact that it just is a complex solution that will probably lead to even less understanding of the users. The 30 minute window was invented to circumvent bots and you need to be quite seasoned to understand how it works and what effects it has on your earnings. It's not user friendly at all. Still, people and tools adapted to bypass it and maximize their profits anyway. To some extend the same will happen again. The smart and rich will adapt to benefit more.

I'm not sure about the unintentional behaviors. I think those only apply if you vote really very consciously. I just vote for what I like, I don't look how parameters influence my curation rewards. In that sense an incorrect post payout value won't prevent or motivate me to (not) vote.

I'm also not sure how correct your assumption about this declined reward is. Will it be included in the post reward and be subtracted afterwards or won't it be shown on the interface. They could just keep showing 0 SBD the first 15 minutes but show a number of votes. I don't know, just an idea.

To put it short. I don't agree with your conclusion but I do agree on the fact that it is a bad fix of a previous bad fix for other reasons.