sure, you want to spread out the superlinearity more

have you seen the actual curve? It's more or less doing this and is probably already too subtle

https://www.desmos.com/calculator/weerzfsi7b

I think it does what you want it to anyway, at least if not precisely, it's unlikely to be bad enough that you'll be too obstinate about it

I'd like a little bit of superlinearity that does this:

1. strong enough that it deters spam micro votes
2. weak enough and with a linear cap so you don't have collusive groups piling up at the top end and then splitting the higher rewards
3. with 1 and 2 in mind, be as fair as possible

I'm not in charge of the curve at all mind you, just want one that vaguely gives us 1 2 while mindful of 3. If anything that curve is a little too subtle.

I don't think in practice genuine micro interactions will lose out really. If we can get the majority of rewards that's currently being drained and force them into honest voting, which is the idea, you'll likely see far more rewards overall flow towards the low end as well, despite the on paper loss

your curve would probably work with some S value that'll likely need to be a little bigger than the one you have. But I'll be a little afraid of it being uncapped later, honestly not sure why you want that.

anyway, I personally feel that the curve they're going for is better than yours because yours is probably a little insufficient at achieving 1 and has a risk of collusive pile ons at the extreme end. But if you're able to convince them to adopt it, it's likely within a range i'd find pretty acceptable.

By far the most interesting idea of yours is downvotes disproportionately hitting curators over authors (putting aside that exact implementation which probably has problems, i mean conceptually it's interesting). I don't really agree that bad curation is currently a problem (it's overall dishonest voting) but it could be a problem in the future. I agree that downing author rewards over curation is a side effect rather than an intended effect (but others would not agree on this, they find inflation going into SP holders to be an important incentive to hold SP and thereby maintain protocol security).

Nevertheless, this measure would be one of the very few that could directly decrease the 'stickiness' of an established author with a automated curation trail. It has some weird side effects like resulting in two posts of identical payouts distribute the rewards differently depending on the number of downvotes. Maybe after the EIP when a better equilibrium is reached we'll consider it if established authors are too 'sticky'