Thanks for the response! I believe your suggestion is entirely viable and identifies a good solution... and we're basically in agreement.
THAT SAID... can "the powers that be" be persuaded to change the curation system without first being very clearly shown that they are-- in effect-- "killing the goose that's laying the golden eggs?" If people-- even if they are just a small handful of the total "population"-- are profiting from their short term actions, where is their incentive to change things? We have to present the decision point of "$2000 a week NOW" vs. "your Steem appreciates by 1000% in three years" and you don't get both. And that may be a hard "sell."
Where do we start, functionally speaking? An analysis of the witnesses... who supports what, and votes subsequently being redistributed?