I just spent the last couple hours reading some posts from @trafalgar and @kevinwong about the components in the EIP, and I feel like I understand the reasoning behind it a bit better now. As I understand it, the current setup makies it about 4x more profitable to just self-vote, sell votes, delegate to bidbots, etc... The proposed changes in the EIP would, in theory, make it roughly equal to either self-vote or perform honest curation and content discovery.

Do I think that this is the ideal solution? No.

Do I think this is probably an effective solution, and probably the quickest to implement to stop the entire ship from sinking due to crashing into an obvious and apparently circle-jerk-berg? Yeah, probably.

Do I think all self-voting and vote selling is bad? No, not really. There's probably a healthy place / amount of it required.

Is it fair that the 10% funding for the SPS be taken solely from the reward pool? No, I don't think so. If anything, it should come directly from witnesses and stakeholder interest portions, I'd say. They benefit the most from improvements to the system, and should pay the most for it.

Edit:

I wanted to mention that I, personally, think that the ability for Steem to hardfork and adapt and make changes is more of a strength than a drawback. It would be nice though if communities had more say in these factors. I suppose we "technically" vote for witnesses -- but those votes don't have much weight, and things are almost entirely governed by whales (one in particular).