My suggestion is to let authors decide how much rewards they want to allocate to curators.
I like this, if you have happened to have checked out some of my latest posts, the one about manual curation vs auto curation it really has become a "front-running eachother with autovotes on posts we know will trend from same authors" while raking in most of the curation rewards cause too few vote manually compared to autovotes.
Was also the reason I made the next post to encourage manual curators to earn more rewards by voting on the OCD nominations knowing my votes will follow - this way I sacrifice some of my own rewards but at least manual curators start making more and in a way taking from the autovote curators.
Will be nice to see some other solutions to this in the future though, and giving out bigger curation rewards on your own posts if you choose so will be very effective. For the record, I've been voting on my own posts a lot later on purpose for a long time now just to make curation rewards more worth it.
I believe an option for authors to chose curators's reward percentage would give an advantage to manual curators over bots or will at least rebalance and give equal earning opportunities.
Bots don't like to adapt to different situations but with this feature they will have to because the percentage that goes to curators could be different for every posts.
So bots voting for the same authors for example will miss better opportunities to earn elsewhere and bots voting only posts with high curation % might lose reputation and money ( post downvoted) because many of these posts will be shit content.
Right and the sad thing is that everyone loses by doing this.