I think you slightly misunderstand my friend @sigmajin, or if not, then I will simply present my view.
It is not that the @curie posts are inherently inappropriate in some way, nor the @dantheman posts, nor @kushed's friends' posts. It is that every complaint about "unfair" or "undeserved" or "excessive" payouts can be matched by others, with all competing over who can shout the loudest, or with the more persuasive hit piece. Where does this leave us? With a platform full of competing accusations that repels newcomers and ultimately serves the interests of no one except those who enjoy trolling and counter-trolling. The internet is full of such people and we're no exception. They exist here too and will destroy any shot at popular appeal this platform might have. Which will repel Aunt Milly more? That @honeyscribe is paid more than what you think she deserves due to so-called unfair whale voting or that every day the platform is full of negative posts where users make accusations against other?
We all have votes. We should use those votes as we see fit, to allocate the finite reward funds according to voting-derived consensus. If you don't like how the funds are being allocated, then vote to allocate them differently. If you don't have enough vote power to make the difference you want to see, then you can buy more or earn more.
Disagreements can be resolved by voting, where the system (code) reaches a consensus by counting SP voted up and down, compares across posts, and settles the matter via an impartial and objective algorithm. They can also be debated endlessly and with varying degrees of shrillness and hostility that ultimately comes down to claims by everyone concerned that their own opinions on what is more deserving or how people should vote is more valid than that of others'. We need more of the former and less of the latter.
Fine words and eloquently put.