We've known for quite a while now that Dan Larimer has been working, at least conceptually, on Steemit 2.0 - To me this is not only rational, but expected. Being the brain that came up with the idea, and seeing it survive for now three years after it's inception, would give anyone, not just him, an emotional attachment to the concept of blockchain powered social media.
That being said, I never saw it like a bad thing, like a race that if Steem was to lose would symbolize the end. To me, it's always made sense that competition would bring about the best eventually, and I would go as far as to say that the reason why development on Steem has taken off, is probably very much connected to the dormant competitor.
For as long as I've been on Steem, going on almost two years now, I've read thousands of comments about the economic gamification of the Steem blockchain. Truthfully, there's been a combination of irrational melancholy of the nonexistent good ol' days, with what I can only describe as total apathy for the valid concerns of Steemians. So without a doubt, seeing that Steemit Inc has began the conversations on this front, gives me hope that we are finally trying to do better.
My expectation is that if we implement the new curve for rshare assignment, we will find ourselves still battling abuse, but the game of said abuse will probably take on another form. Abuse is a consequence of human psychology and it truly can't be avoided altogether. As they say, where there's a will, there's a way. But, this has never meant, nor will it ever mean, that we had the best solution implemented already and that attempting to polish it, to improve it, is wasteful.
If you are comfortable with math, I would encourage you to visit Vandeberg's blog post on the proposed idea. It's actually broken down to a very simple explanation that most people should comprehend. That being said, if you are too lazy to understand it, what's important is that with the proposed voting curve, vote farming would not be as lucrative as it is today and in theory it should help incentivize curation.
I'm careful to say it's going to work perfectly, but without a doubt it would be a move in the right direction in my personal opinion.
I'm also going to speculate on what Dan Larimer might actually do with his Steem 2.0 idea, and go out on a limb to say that he will probably go with the n^2 curve as Steem once had. To me, if both platforms would be operating at the same time, that would give us a good indication on the best system of distribution and content discovery, as It would not be irrational to assume a cross pollination of users.
It is a race for better, but to me this a reason to excited, not worried.