I mentioned this elsewhere, but figured I'd take a moment to write a reply about it as well.
I'd definitely support changes to the 30m window and am all for exploring ways to maybe create a level playing field in the first 5 minutes.
What I don't think I'd support is just hardcoding the system back to 50/50. I'd much rather see those values turn into a configurable amount that can be decided by the platform it's being posted on. On a site like Steemit - being about curation and content discovery (both needing work), 50/50 might be a good number, but it would be a hinderance to platforms like chainBB where curation is effectively meaningless and votes are only an expression of wanting to reward someone.
A configurable amount (set inside the comment_options operation for a post at the time of creation) would also let the community experiment with every imaginable range of values, from 0% to 100% for both authors and curators, and the market will decide what to vote for. Some platforms may flounder if they choose the wrong values, while others may succeed by setting numbers we would have never expected.
I hope we can get some action around this (and a number of other issues that have nagged us for ages) early in 2018 - there's a lot to do still to make this platform rock solid.
RE: Voting Abuse and Ineffective Curation: A proposal for blockchain-level change