They didn't need not to blog to get a follower base. They could also write interesting comments, be highly regarded witnesses or developers. If they only owned a big stake (for example from the golden mining era) but apart from that did just nothing (or were writing ultra short nonsense posts just to upvote them themselves, as often seen nowadays) - then I actually think it was justified to subtract something of their vote weight compared to users with lower stake but more community related activity.
The formula given in my article is just one possibility. Of course one could multiply the term
UA(voter) / UA(average)
with a number smaller than 1 for example.
Why should a curator be forced to engage beyond his activity as a curator? To me curation by individual accounts is one of the most important activities here. Whoever is taking this up should get rewards in sole dependency of his/her stake AND his/her capability of spotting undervalued content early. Requiring a curator to additionally drop interesting comments and this in high frequency is an unreasonable demand. And being a witness or developer is just unrealistic for most of us.
Why should a great curator have less good followers than a great article composer?
I would follow you as good curator and thus hopefully increase your UA. :)
If you ask me it shouldn't but that's simply how it is. Currently it doesn't matter but something like the proposed UA would discriminate those non-blogging curators massively.
I think it's just speculation that curators would face a hard time in the new environment.
They are precious upvoters ... and the higher their UA the more precious their numerous upvotes. So one could also come to the conclusion to benefit oneself when increasing the 'UA' (and thus the vote value) of successful curators by simply following them.