I'm going to be a bit careful when addressing this point, because I don't want to be interpreted as someone who is bashing content creators. As one myself, I know and understand the motivations behind creating content, and the expectation when a lot of work is put forth. But, I'm trying to be realistic and I hope my intentions are clear.

Creators != Investors

Simply put: Most content creators are not investors, and they might never be. Which is to say that is unrealistic for us stakeholders to think that if we support content creators, they are going to power up everything and thus become one day heavily invested. Yes, I'm sure some will, but most won't and that's the point I'm trying to make.

I've read a few times somewhat negative comments on this subject. Which is to say, that there are those who believe that if a content creator is powering down, for example, It's our duty as stakeholders to stop supporting that user. On this front, I've changed my mind a bit. Of course I get it, it's somewhat frustrating to see someone not think long term, but it's none of our business as stakeholders to police what people do with their stake.

It's probably because of this particular change in my thinking, that I'm feeling positive about the 50/50. It makes it to where an investor would not feel any qualms about upvoting content they like, as it would make no difference for their own growth and long term strategy.

Distribution issues

At this point, I'm not aware of any token that is not attempting to improve on this front, but it seems like the battle is not only algorithmic but a revolt against our default human behaviors. Simply said, some people are better at accumulating resources and that's not a jab at those who've been dealt a bad hand either.

Some would say, and I would agree, that the new split and curve would make it so that new accounts would grow much slower. Yes, that seems ring true, but we are assuming that most accounts want to grow, and maybe that assumption is flawed to begin with.

I don't think it's anecdotal anymore when we say that most people just cash out. Of course, those who do have their reasons, but the point is that regardless of the algorithm we implement, most people will continue to cash out.

Will these upcoming changes affect distribution negatively? Maybe so, but we might be looking at it in the wrong time frame. In other words, the "growing accounts" were cashing out anyways, but they fluffed the numbers just a bit.

Business disruption

On this front I do have to agree with Exyle, but I'm not that concerned. Yes, some businesses that are built around the current distribution system will probably fail. That being said, some other projects will simply adapt and continue.

It's nothing shocking to say that not all businesses built on Steem are going to succeed. Some are great ideas, some are a little more than wishful thinking with nice logos. But, these frictions, these "failures", are precisely how an economy flourishes. The old trial and error rings very true.

Conclusion

I'm not worried, not even a little bit. You could say I'm heavily invested, and because of it, I should be worried, but It's the opposite for me. I welcome these changes and hope that those are resistant to accept them, concede at least one point.

Is it not better to constantly pursue improvement, than dwell in conformity? We can agree to that, right?