I'm replying here, because I can't reply to your last post.
I think you got my idea completely the other way around. The idea is to give curators 75% share of articles by new (poor) authors, so both whales and minnows have an incentive to sort trough new content.
The richer an author becomes, the less the curation reward (on a progressive scale, up to the current 25%). It's a clear win to vote for someone whose articles usually cash out, right? That's why there needs to be an incentive to look through the articles of new authors (hence my suggested 75% for new authors).
That's it. People will actually read the articles. Wealth is slightly better distributed among good authors. New bad authors still won't get cash.
Yes, that completely robs new authors, since steem power comes through payout, as well as cash incentive to keep going. It will have the effect of completely killing new writers after the first couple of votes. I think your idea didn't get attention, simply because it would be detrimental to the system. The creator of the post deserves the lion's share of the profit, period. Why should someone who just finds my hard work get more than me?