Exactly. It may seem that 50% curation would help the bigger accounts, but there is no free lunch. 50% curation rewards hurt the steem economy and that directly cuts into the pockets of the holders.
In addition, instead of just voting as you please, bigger accounts will be even more forced to vote algorithmically to not miss out compared to others that do so. Instead when curation is removed, big accounts do not have to try to outsmart each other and can focus their energy on promoting steem, which is the only proper way to get more money out of their investment.
Not all whales are experienced investors, and, while the ninja miners are certainly intelligent, we shall have to see if they gain the necessary understanding to grow their stakes, or, like lotto winners broke a year later, lament the poor decisions that leave them as broke as before their windfall. It is counterintuitive to realize that grabbing all the cash one can and maximizing short term ROI can be harmful to ones financial position. Some folks do grasp how investing differs from profiteering, and the blatant censorship being undertaken on competing media present a remarkable opportunity to grow a platform and create unimaginable wealth in the process.
The disruptive nature of cryptocurrency lends some hope that investors in Steem may yet prevail, as censorship is a means of retaining control, and Steem natively disrupts the extant banksters. There is a natural concordance between the two purposes of implementing a censorship resistant media and growing the value of Steem. Even should some whales sellout to Goldman Sachs, I don't think the war will be lost.
Rather, I reckon the acquisition of stake by GS would drive deep into some the fact of the potential of Steem to be more than just a quick profit opportunity, even more than an emunerative career, but such a game-changer that playing it well could replace the top players. This contest hasn't really started yet, IMHO.