So if I understand this right you want to reward people even more for clicking their way down the trending list as quickly as they can? This is what higher curation rewards will incentivize, not actually looking for quality content.

Plus, it doesn't feel FAIR. I'm one of those who spend a lot of time and thought in creating content (videos, photography). Aside from the time, it's costing real money to ride around to find footage to share. All this is supposed to be worth 20%, while the mere clicking on stuff is worth 80%?

You do this, I will be gone, too. O.K., my prime motivation isn't money; it's a hobby, but still...

So here is my suggestion: Why not go exactly the opposite way? NO CURATION REWARD at all, 100% towards the authors. So no incentive to like garbage anymore. Also, no whales and pond scum anymore. One man, one vote.

This I would combine with a surprise effect: No showing how high the author reward will be, no indication how many likes received, no trending lists, a secret vote so to speak - for seven days. Then rewards are decided AFTER the fact: All systemwide "likes" are totaled up and authors get their share of the reward pool based on the percentage of total likes they managed to get.

How something like this could be implemented I leave to you blockchain experts. I'm just venting my limited view which I haven't thought through all the way, nor am I interested in doing so.

In closing, Netflix isn't paying people to watch their offerings, it's the other way around. They do that by putting on stuff that people want to see. And that stuff comes from creators who are being paid halfway decent.