It seems some people's thinking is stuck in an economic model despite its not working, and that could well stifle any discussion aimed at improving things, leading to ineffective, polarised debate only.

When a model doesn't predict what actually happens, or enable what you want, you change it. You can go to a linear curve, you can abolish curation rewards, etc. Both are better options than continuing with what we are doing. I'm in favour of a linear curve now, but if it turns out it doesn't help, I'll start opposing the idea in stead of blaming reality for not cooperating.

I would then be even more in favour of abolishing curation rewards, mainly because I have other ideas about what makes people invest, what motivates people to curate, and what damage bots and reward hunters are doing.

I will freely admit I am stuck in another economic theory for now, one that takes a more anthropological approach and includes non-financial motivation, group dynamics, and fun. I may well be proven wrong also.