Indeed, my proposal for the structure of the coming SteemAlliance Foundation was based on evergreen voting for content, including development proposals, which can be withdrawn at the sole option of the stakeholder.

I see 50/50 mandatory curation as simply increasing the rentier income extractable from the various mechanisms extant and used for that purpose, none of which actually create incentive to produce quality content. They rather degrade it, and the optics are terrible.

Actual investors with substantial stake would be railing against this proposed increase in profiteering, because it will only decrease upwards pressure on Steem price, and make capital gains even less likely than they are now.