But in absolute terms, in fiat money, the reward pool "size" can be increased by increasing the value of Steem. I think that's where we should focus.

this will happen when the value of steem increases.

Which will happen (as you correctly point out) when good content attracts new users and investors.

Which will happen when people are encouraged to publish good content based on their perception that it is likely to b e rewarded.

If, for instance, Steem trades at $1, there will be a $46,000 worth of rewards pool.

Yes, and projects like curie (using that as an example because of @liberost commenting above) will drain 6x as much. Thats the thing..., the "drain" is not a fixed dollar value, its a percent based on the support of their voter base. If SV, curie, TIL, etc etc take 50%=3550 of a 7100 reward pool, that doesnt mean theyll take 3550 out of a 46000 reward pool, it means theyll take 23000 out of a 46000 reward pool,

When steem was at $4, We decided to give hundreds of thousands of dollars to authors like rolandp guerrint, stellabelle, their cohort, and nothing or practically nothing to out other writers. The result: they all percieved their content was not valued, and they left. this:

this should guarantee an average payout of $4.6/article (I know average doesn't work here, it's just theoretical).

is precisely what didnt happen. And precisely the reason, imo, that we lost most of hte people interested in the platform at the time.