Switching all inflation to SPS would certainly be a radical move. Would content creators and curators stick around? Would it matter and if so, how much?

My idea is just that SPS would be in-between the various existing funds. For example, the author rewards would not get funded unless it's released from the SPS. And stakeholders would campaign for more or less funding in each round.

Basically, make the SPS the priority to fund the other pools. Maybe content creators would get more funding for certain rounds and less funding for other rounds, for example.

Since investors don't seem to really care much about STEEM anyway, I think the EIP is worth doing because it demonstrates we can make changes and hopefully evaluate them accordingly.

That's great, except for one thing. Hardly anyone is making this aspect front-and-center. You point it out. Witnesses talk about it. But it never makes it into a sound-bite or tweet or any other marketing material. Just "Look at how agile we are" would be a great official video from the biggest marketing arm of the blockchain (but who is that?). Dash does it all the time. They can even market "sporks" of all things.

EOS had 4% inflation set to go to a SPS-like pool and it just caused a bunch of drama and uncertainty.

See, that's another example of bad marketing. I am certain we can spin burn workers into something really positive. Dash manages this just fine. Some people even come away from Dash saying, "They'd rather burn Dash than accept my proposal." That is a marketing opportunity. If we're really that discerning with our inflation, investors will take notice.

By the way, I'm also pretty excited by the notion of a SteemDAC, that you mentioned in the root post. I'd love for that to be explored. That is also pretty radical, but worth looking at, even if it's never actually rolled out and just an additional way to model the existing blockchain. "We did this because EOS did it and it seemed to work well for them" is marketable and aggrandizing.