Response started as a comment, but quickly became clear that it's a post:
My Verbiose Response
You're putting words in my mouth, but if you want to make that leap, lets go there.
The discussion is always argued from the basis of 'content creators do all the work, so they should get the reward'. Why is that the case? Where does STEEM get it's value? (Not Steem, that's a technology and it gets value from powering various use-cases). But STEEM?
Steem uses DPOS technology to secure the blockchain. So obviously the witnesses should get rewarded, since they provide the technology. But why should authors/curators get rewarded at all?
Do authors deserve to get paid just for publishing? If I stand on the street corner and sign, do I deserve to get paid just for doing so?
Curators get paid for holding stake. In effect, they are being paid for taking financial risk to hold stake. The default behavior is for a stakeholder to get 100% the stake rewards for their stake. The opt to give some of that to the witnesses for securing their stake. The rest comes out of their pocket (inflation on their stake) and their receiving it should be the default assumption.
The game theory equilibrium status quo is that curators receive 100% of their upvote - because 100% of the reward pool comes from inflation on their stake (or depreciation). That's why we have seen a whole system migrate toward that (with massive rewards going through bid-bots, where close to 100% of the upvote is returned to the curator via bid).
Every time a curator upvotes anything without getting paid by the author for the vote, they are doing it because some external factors convince them that the author deserves it more than they do.
It could be because they were paid for it in advance (like with a bid-bot or subscription service) or because somebody else paid for it in advance (like with @steembasicincome) ...
or it could be because they think the author's work will increase the value of Steem (and maybe even STEEM) like with automated upvotes on @steemauto or @steemchiller
it could be because they think they might earn more in curation from the votes of others (like early votes on big vote-buyers)
Or in the most unlikely and extreme case... it could be because they got some qualitative satisfaction from consuming the content and want to reward the content creator.
Content creators do not deserve their upvotes or rewards just for being here. All their votes literally come out of the pockets of the curators (via inflation). Content creators need to convince curators that their content has value... and giving curators a higher percentage of each vote makes that an easier argument, because the curator gives up less value with each vote, and stands to gain more from being early in recognizing the value of the content.
I am opposed to the EIP, but not because content creators will lose value that they deserve. I am opposed to it because changing the rules makes the risks of holding stake higher. Risks devalue the technology and devalue the stake. I am opposed to it because it's a diversion. I'm opposed to it because the changes don't anticipate 'bad actor' scenarios.
If it has to be done (which I don't think it does) then it does not go far enough because it still operates from the idea that content creators deserve the most because they work the hardest.
Where does value come from? Marx said it comes from labor.
The rest of modern economics is built on marginalism: the value of anything comes from somebody's subjective willingness to pay.
Steem is breaking down because all the content creators are Marxists, while the money comes from Marginalists.
Can a marginalist survive in a marxist world? Can a marxist survive in a marginalist world? Which kind of world is Steem?
I'll give you a hint... the code-base is marginalist, but the culture is Marxist and the schism is causing the breakdown.