That sounds very reasonable to me. It could be tough to do.
Traders would hopefully stick to liquid Steem, and therefore never vote. Their stake is simply ignored for rewards-pool calculations.
Investors (people with Steem Power, not liquid Steem) in Steem hopefully have some belief in the fundamentals of the platform.
I think the idea of powering down was partially to help separate "traders" from real investors in the platform. Most real investors in the platform would be either content creators or big users of social media.
The problem I think we've seen is that the amount of gains that can be made voting for yourself, or vote-trading, are large enough to tempt traders (or anyone willing to hold 13 weeks) into maximizing this value. Once other people start doing it, the rest of us are forced to do so or fall further and further behind.
I think people will always act in their own best interests on average, so we need a way to encourage everyone's best interests to align with the group.
Perhaps we can figure out a way to rework curation to be based more on rewards given, than rewards given after you give rewards. Somehow, curation has to be more valuable.
It seems more curation benefits could encourage more readership too, at least a scan.
I keep seeing Steemit needs to do this or that, but no one is able to implement this or that except those at the very top, who don't seem to be interested enough to do this or that. So in light of the issues and lack of response to the issues, how can users marry the two? Could the arrangement @snowflake had with @mindhunter have been seen in a positive light if it somehow benefitted the platform? Not saying how, just asking for clarity to possibly come up with how.
Steemit is overall pretty anarchistic, so they don't like "fixing" stuff with rules. That includes the community as well as the company, from what I can tell.
I think if the situation could be seen as a positive for Steem's overall value long-term, it could be seen as beneficial or at least neutral. Hypothetically speaking.
Interesting, when I think of a fix I was assuming more in functionality than rules. I guess rules are used in code to create functionality though.