I think you have the wrong idea here. Steem going down isn't the problem, the problem is that we let it go up too quickly.

Here's what people need to understand: your blogs aren't worth what you're getting paid, and your work as a curator isn't worth what you're getting paid either.

The biggest issue with that is that people who thought these payouts could last are/will be disappointed when we return to an equilibrium.

Sure, your blog might get paid a bit more here per reader than on other platforms, since there's no company taking a cut of the revenue it creates, but when it reaches an equilibrium, it won't be anywhere close to what it is right now (at least with the current userbase). That equilibrium could be an order of magnitude lower.

Curation shouldn't be seen as a way to make money. It should be a small + to using the platform.

"You've curated content for a year? Here, have an extra $20 for your work on the platform."

Now that might be closer to what we should expect. If you're looking at it this way, no increase in % given to curation will make this appealing to investors. The reason for powering up should be influence, and let me tell you that influence on a platform with ~10k active users isn't worth all that much.

One more point, people will power down until their holdings match what they'd be willing to invest in the platform (say if they'd just heard about it). A lot of "Steem millionnaires" will want to drop their stake down to a tiny fraction of what it is right now.