If you look at the 50/50 change in isolation, it seems bad for 'authors' (the ones going from 75->50). Obviously if an author is making a $10 post and they are going to go from $7.50 to $5.00, that is bad. The idea though is that you can't look at the change in isolation. The change is being talked about as part of an overall package, which is intended to actually get more stakeholders curating instead of delegating to voting bots. If it is successful, then the authors that are actually producing something of value should get a bigger slice of the overall pie. 50% of a $20 post instead of 75% of a $10 post is better.

Obviously it is very speculative, and nobody knows how it will all play out. It could end up going either way. I am not going to sit here and tell you that it will 100% be better for authors, but the reason we are considering this change (along with the other changes in the package) is that it has a good chance of improving things.

With regards to your "glacial" method, let's take an oversimplified example where your upvote is worth $1.00, and 0.25 is going to you (the curator) and 0.75 is going to the author. If I understood your concern correctly, it is that the author is now only getting 0.50 instead of 0.75. Is that correct? Assuming that is the case, and we are looking at the change in isolation where nothing else changes, you are getting the other 0.25 back as the curator. If you really care about the author getting the 0.25 that you earned as a curator, you can always send it to them as a transfer. (I'm not 100% sure I understood your example/concern correctly, so if I missed something let me know.)