So my suggestions: 1. There is a need for STEEM Economic Shifts. 2. There are many other Economic Shift Possibilites, such as 100% Curation Rewards and 0 Creator Rewards.
Excuse me, but I am having a hard time forcing my brain to accept that I just read that. In truth, I cannot think of a single better way to absolutely destroy the entire premise of the site than this.
First of all, Hardfork 20 has already damaged the site's usability almost irreparably by guaranteeing that only those who invest large amounts of money in the platform can interact with it (I'm using up more than a day's worth of resource credits typing this reply). Users who spend high amounts of money on Steem are allowed the "privilege of speaking" more often while those who do not must count the words they use because they have a remarkably limited daily ration of them. So much for "decentralization;" the entire world is plagued with the principle of haves being given more of a voice than have-nots, but only Steemit has managed to create a blockchain-enforced systemic guarantee that this principle will have no exceptions.
Meanwhile the loss of voting power that came about from the advent of these "Resource Credits" in the same Hardfork has made it so unlikely that anything will ever be upvoted that the chances of ever being rewarded for content went from microscopic (as they were before) to sub-atomic. At this point Steemit has become a clone of ancient and long-forgotten Livejournal, except that Livejournal offered unlimited free usability and Steemit does not.
And now, you have an idea to take away author rewards altogether, meaning that there is no longer any incentive to create quality content at all since the rewards would be solely generated based on "hey, you liked the same thing as everyone else! Good little social sheep. Here's your daily ration." The most ironic thing is that this you put this forth as a solution to the problem of rewards being based on networking rather than content. It sounds more like gasoline on the fire you described than a solution to it.
At the risk of being crass, this idea is roughly akin to a Hooters manager saying he wants to try out an all-male wait-staff, then saying he will no longer pay his employees and give their pay to his advertisers instead. Not only does it throw out the business's original draw, but it guarantees that no one will want to contribute anything worthwhile.
If you want to solve the "bigger network pays more than good content" problem, here is my suggestion.
Let curator rewards only go to those who actually resteem content, rather than those who simply click the "upvote" button.
You like the article? You want a piece of the pie? Then invest some of your resource credits sharing it.
That way, the curator rewards go to those who actually recognize good content and say "hey people should see this" instead of simply "come, minions! Make money for me by lavishing me with praise and I shall graciously share some of the scraps with you!" That's just my two cents.