@informationwar: However, suggesting

However, suggesting that everyone put a cap on their rewards isn't going to work. Most people just won't do that. Not unless a way can be found to incentivize that in a positive way. Besides, you might put a ton of work into creating high quality posts that get little reward and then one day make a lower effort post (I don't mean spam or complete shitpost...just a shorter lower effort post) that makes a lot...hardly seems fair to limit yourself at that point does it?

I think it is one of the tools that is good, to allow people to limit their rewards on the post. I get that people don't like limiting themselves(bacteria eat and eat and eat until nothing is left, we are mostly bacteria). Some people might not have known about this function and will now use it. I didn't know about it for awhile either, no one talks about it.

The problem isn't that there are high quality posts that get little reward, they are getting little reward because of subjective upvoters and not objective upvoters. If most people put limits on their posts of say 20 USD or 30 USD, those subjective upvoters would be wasting their upvote on voting more than that, so it spread it around more. That's one way of ensuring someone doesn't get 180 USD on a photo challenge that took them 1 minute to post, or some "cooking recipe" with 120 USD with no comments.

I think it is a good tool to have, I just think its usage will be somewhat limited. Perhaps it would make sense in the future to partially base how much a post is worth on factors other than purely votes. Some possibilities include number of comments, number of comments receiving upvotes, number of views, etc. I think the primary factor should be votes but this could be modified up or down on a percentage basis based on some of these other things. or maybe some mechanism that limited vote values on some scale...i.e. the first 100 votes are worth 100% of their normal value, the next 100 are worth 75%, etc. These are just a few random ideas and there are lots of possibilities. I think the situation will gradually improve over time.

There's no such thing as an "objective" upvoter, at least not in terms of the value of the content. The value of any piece of content to any given person is purely subjective. If people are worried more about whether or not their vote earns them (or someone else) more money than whether or not they like the post, I think that is counterproductive. People should be upvoting what they like if we want a consensus of the best content in trending/hot. If people really don't like your content, it shouldn't be getting upvotes just because it is there, regardless of how much work was put into it.

I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to blockchain enforced daily or per post limits but i think these would have to be limited only at the extremes. I also think having to provide a reason for a downvote might be beneficial though I'm not sure exactly how that would look.