I think the proposed changes would probably be good, but I don't like the "Let's try it and see what happens" methodology. Before making fundamental changes like that, I think that stakeholders should do at least 2 things.
1.) Do a game theory analysis of the current and proposed changes. (similar to the paper discussed here).
2.) Create some sort of simulator to model and compare the current and proposed changes.
If both of those two things indicate positive results, that would be the time to get community buy-in and implement them. Also, I think there's a gap in both the current and proposed rules. Under neither set of rules is there an incentive for high stakeholders to accurately appraise a post's value. Instead, large stakeholders are motivated to vote large and early, creating a tendency to overvalue the posts that they vote on - regardless of the curation split or reward curve.
Coincidentally, I wrote a toy simulator last week to explore a voting algorithm that's patterned after auction theory's "second price auction", that I think might limit the tendency towards overvaluation. It seems to force high-stake voters to avoid wasting voting power by moderating their own votes to match how they think others will appraise a post.
I wrote a summary post the other day, here - Simulating a Steem curation rewards distribution that is modeled after a 2nd price auction. As mentioned in a comment the other day, instead of "wiinging it", I'd also like to see a working group form on-blockchain to explore current literature and try to identify the best tradeoffs.