Well, most of the problem comes from bots and users exploring the system, which results in constant tweaking - and some of the decisions taken are completely illogical.
For example, the 30 minute penalty on the voting weight of early curators, resulted only in users getting less for their curating efforts, but bots remaining just as powerful - their developers simply tweaked them to vote after the 30th minute.
Sometimes Steemit looks like a pyramid scheme. And if many more such illogical decisions are taken and good ones like mine remain ignored, this suspicion may turn out to be true.
I took a look at your idea.
I think it would have a negative impact.
If you disincentivize new users, no new established accounts can ever emerge. Professional writers, like myself, see potential in the platform because the earning potential is equal. Everything else on the site is slanted toward established authors already.
The voting power structure will right itself as more whales develop and even more dolphin scale accounts are created. Writers with real quality voices will rise, and those who either don't have what it takes to draw an audience, or have no staying power will fade, if things are left alone to even out over time.