I feel similarly and will reject this hardfork. I agree about 1) and 4), but I'm more negative on 2) and 3) than you are.

I'll add that 50/50 is also insufficient; bid-bots will continue to be profitable till it's something like 20/80. What they lose out in author rewards allocation, much of it they make back in increased curation rewards. Similarly, rampant self-voters will get 100% irrespective of the splits anyway, so they don't really care. Overall, I'm indifferent, because, despite its ineffectiveness in solving the alleged issues, and disincentivizing content creation, it should hypothetically encourage people to curate and power up more.

I'm against a free-for-all downvote pool with no abuse mitigation protocols and an undefined amount of voting power. I've been campaigning for viable downvotes since the beginning, but this is a facile implementation. Even the zealots/fanboys of this hardfork will admit that this will bring around some toxicity, but it's a "necessary evil". To which I'll say - if you really think encouraging toxicity has any place in a "social" network, at any point, you know your entire system is due for an absolute and complete overhaul. I'm tempted to invoke Godwin's law, but I'll pass. To be clear, I do think things will settle down, and it may marginally benefit the economy. Like you, my opinion has little consequence to the consensus, but I don't want any part of this anti-social network as a witness.

The only solution is a complete overhaul from scratch. When they get around to it, and is designed by people who understand elementary human behaviour, I'll consider returning.