I read your post first but voted here as the context of the commentary was interesting and added to my viewpoint. Your post has many valid points.
Here are my thoughts

• Payout cycle. I think the 24 hour cycle reinforces the 4 posts a day process. It forces me to write at least one post per day. I have tested also promoting a post in the last few hours of a cycle - I cannot say it has made a difference. However, I do feel the limited payout cycle makes promotion more compelling
• Editing posts is gong to introduce a level of complexity ad it goes against the blockchain idea. I could write a post with a compelling argument and collect a good reward. Then come back a few days later and change the argument (or simply just add the other side of the argument) to collect more. One can always make your edits as a comment - I know I need to do a few of those on my orchid posts as I got some technical names wrong. This will be subject to nesting limits, though. Whatever happens, the editing time limit must be the same as the first payout cycle - that reduces the gaming
• Nesting of comments bothers me sometimes when we get a really good post that provokes debate. One wants to add to the debate and the nesting gets in the way.
• Comment pool payout: The best ideas come when they build on other peoples ideas. Putting in a big effort into a comment and not getting rewarded is disappointing. Watching a disproportionate reward going to a comment that adds no value is equally disappointing. My guess is we will only find the right balance by tweaking and testing. Instinct tells me that 38% is going to be way too high - it is going to unleash an army of smart AI comment bots delivering spun comments. By the same token, the current system is discouraging people form adding value to a post - rather write a new post. I know I did a great comment yesterday that would have been better as a post. (The comment added more value than the original post)