Perhaps we should task the curators with increasing their diligence while curating?
Instead of voting it mostly to those that drop it like it is hot, those curators could cultivate the authors that do other things outside of blogging traveling food posts that helps bring attention to us?

Rather than blindly voting rewards to people, perhaps relationships beyond 'me big vote, you lick boots speak corporate speak' could be developed?

Hivewatchers has been a source of friction all along.
It exists because curators can't be bothered with not voting rewards to scammers.
The anti-abuse community, few that we are, has had to chase behind the people complaining about dilution while voting rewards to people that dump all they get as quick as they get it.
Wtf?

Rather than being responsible curators, many curators expect hivewatchers and sundry volunteers to keep the mess tolerably cleaned up.

Scammers get more support than dissenters.
Dissenters at least make examinations of what is likely truth more plentiful.
Scammers are who are diluting the complainers.

I agree with what you say about rewards migrating to the 2nd layer, but I can't see that as a realistic occurrence before rc's have value.
Once rc's can be rented out the need to distribute the hive token can be dialed back.
People will move to the second layer because the first is more expensive to maintain a presence on.

Until then, it looks like we get what we got because that is how it is and nobody that could change it will change it, imo.

The adage is just as true now as ever, 'If you don't like how hive is being managed, buy more hive.'