Thanks for the mention!
This is a great idea that I'd love to see someone try, but I'd argue that it doesn't eliminate the need for a change to the reward split. Curation is fundamental to Steem's "Proof of brain" mechanism, so I think that getting the incentives right should be done on the blockchain itself, not through reliance on a 3rd party. Somewhere around half of the world is made up of introverts, and "lurking" is a very common Internet behavior, so (IMO) the blockchain incentives need to be designed in a way that is more attractive to that underrepresented investment class.
As I said in the other thread, I think that because they would lead to an increase in audience size for authors and favorable changes to supply and demand for STEEM, these sorts of efforts would be beneficial for nearly all stakeholders: authors, voters, and investors of all sizes. I think that the only classes who may not benefit would be spammers and plagiarizers, who would find more eyes on their posts, too.
Fortunately, the two things aren't mutually exclusive, so someone could certainly go forward with a system like this, no matter what happens with the reward split.
Thank you for upvoting my post.
SteemIt gives me the account name of everyone who votes for me. I love everyone who upvotes me.
True lurkers prefer to stay anonymous. One could design a SteemConnect app that would drop upvotes with an anonymous name. The app would have a hundred lurker accounts allowing the curators to upvote and downvote posts anonymously.
@ats-david's argument for 50/50 states that SteemIt.com was never intended to be a single web site, but that the currency was designed to create a foundation for multiple sites.
As it would not be difficult to make a busy.org clone that used delegation to double the rewards for curation. The the original design of STEEM has a ready made mechanism for testing concepts like the statement that increased curation would improve the content.