I think that this discussed possible changes have more sense if we look at them as temporaries adjustments in order to achieve something specific, but should be applied for a long period, from 1 to 2 years, with a well-defined organization chart and action plan., in this way, I believe that 50/50 or maybe 25/75, a curation interval of 3m plus n^1.3 reward curve will do very good for the system, we will have bigger incentives for the curators in that time period, and it will be more likely to obtain external investment to obtain SP, make curation great again.
But then, what we do next? The movement, the change, is necessary to maintain a healthy system, I wonder the following, is it sustainable for the system to boast frequent changes in the code to benefit more curators for a while and more authors in another?
If we look at it superficially, these changes seem to benefit the curators much more than the authors, but I think that the opinion of @nonameslefttouse makes a lot of sense, if we analyze a little more, we can predict a much more active behavior in the curators and therefore more benefits for the authors.