I agree that we shouldn't jump back to ^2 rewards, but the issue is that linear rewards are easier to abuse.
Rather than go backwards, we should address the issue. The community disagrees with the valuation of certain posts. Thus, we need to validate large votes in order to protect the rewards pool and only give heavy rewards to those with large community support rather than a single self upvote or a large whale upvote.
I've suggested that we verify votes utilizing a vote verification scheme that compares the large upvotes to ones around it.
Certainly if an upvote is larger than the entire rest of the support for a single post, that is too much.
More generally, these are the approaches we should be making instead of arguing for flawed system #1 or flawed system #2. Pinpoint particular issues, find potential solutions, find flaws in those potential solutions, repeat.
Going backwards won't help the platform move forward.
Let's say any whale has a $300 vote and they use it on another user they like (this happens all over this site), if the total post is worth $315, should the author be entitled to the rewards even though only person is supporting the work to the extent they are?
I argue that such votes should be validated. If @haejin had $300 and only had small minnow votes, then nobody would argue with that, and someone like Bernie would be in the wrong. In fact, some of the tactics that Bernie uses I don't really care for, but the system allows for that so it happens. Hell, some of the posts where Bernie complains are overpriced and clearly don't deserve the rewards they get. Vote verification works both ways. They can also help limit lone downvotes (like the one used on you, right now). That way things are more community based and it will be harder to lone whales to get in these pointless large fights.
That makes no sense, because @haejin earns rewards greater than the amount lost by flagging. Why would he drain the rewards pool in order to enlarge his share of the reward pool? By downvoting @haejin, he wastes voting power. Such an action is unprofitable.