Have to disagree with you on a number of points. But firstly I have said before I would like the changes to have gone further, maybe 10/90 split. The truth is the vast majority of users will never earn by posting, however they can continue to do so in the hope a post goes viral. When most of the upvotes are worth practically nothing anyway, we need a way for those accounts to grow enough so their vote counts, yes the rewards to authors will hit their earnings but if the votes they get are worth more it should compensate for the loss in earnings.

You need some way in my view to distribute Steem to the lesser accounts and then in turn they will distribute it back. You can't prevent some of this being sold but good Curation incentives should be enough to curtail that. What is certain is that the current model isn't working and with the ability to just earn by delegating to bots it just plays into the hands of those with the most Steem.

Another problem is the bad image it presents that you just sign up with a Steem account and the $$$ just pour in, that doesn't help in the long run. Also there is much more to do than just post and upvote so the focus needs to be getting users to get Steem and Power Up. There are vastly more users who will benefit from Curation rewards than will ever benefit from Post rewards. The problem though is this doesn't fix the other problem, that is getting users to manually upvote original content and stop them delegating to bidbots. If you could fix that aspect as well then I think you would have a better Steem eco system.

But like someone above said its also not about how many rewards you get its about how much those rewards are worth so the focus must be on increasing the token value, I think there is enough going on in Steem to attract new users so I am confident this won't have such a bad effect on that as you believe.