maybe the return for eds-vote and eds-d needs to be reviewed.
I'd be reluctant to see this. The purpose of eds-vote was two-fold - another way to distribute EDSI and to gradually pay off the deficit that was always there and covered by compensation from @spinvest. If we increase the reward structure, we'd be robbing Paul (paying off the existing deficit) to pay Peter (75% rewards), before we even start to look at what's happening with the drop in curation.
I'd also be reluctant because many of the accounts delegating to eds-vote are not interested in either saving, EDSI or the long-term stability and well-being of the fund. They're delegating for a vote. I haven't checked but I'm guessing they're selling their EDSI ... and their HIVE, which is an even bigger problem. I'm loathe to get into self-voting by proxy - here's a good post about it - and I wouldn't want to incentivise that behaviour by increasing rewards. In reality, the rewards are still there, in the fund, and adding value to every EDSI held.