When a post is voted on regardless of who is voting, it is the community reaching a consensus to pay you, so that's an objective resolution, at that point in time, the community objectively decides to pay.
It is the staked community. And technically, it hasn't reached consensus until payout. Up until that, it is still in negotiation :)
But it would be wrong to decide the worth of a post based on the earning, that's my personal opinion
Yet some people do. Or the time and effort they spent creating it, another bad metric. If a professional mechanic or I fix a car, I will spend far more time and effort on that individual fix, does that mean I am better value? :D The thing is though, that in order to fix that car fast and well, the mechanic has had to do a lot of study and practice.
but if you strictly equate earning with quality posts, many might get disappointed.
If quality equals adding value to the community, then they shouldn't ;)
Just think about it, we don't get paid on Twitter, but it's still funny to engage there, if we can remove that extrinsic motivation, then we are always in a win-win position here.
Twitter is a cesspool because people don't get paid! :D