The voters can decide if they find the content interesting or useful or adding value. I thought that was what we already had here. Apparently, short content doesn't get enough appreciation according to some. That's not a reason to curate short posts more, it's a signal from the voting community that they don't appreciate short content much.
Those were exactly my thoughts. If this platform is to be decentralized and based on the votes of users in order to filter "valuable" from "not valuable" content, then it's not necessary to identify the "not valued" posts and find ways to make sure that they are rewarded.
Now, is the current system of rewarding posts skewed or broken? Yes, it is. But that has nothing to do with the average user or the visibility of their content. It has to do with how the vests were distributed and how the posts are currently being upvoted (automated/bot voting, automated trails, curation guilds, etc.).
We need better development and smarter curators, not more gimmicks. This platform is going to live or die by its attractiveness to users as a social media platform. It's not going to die because someone didn't get $40 for telling us what they ate for breakfast or for linking their latest Vine from YouTube. It's not going to survive because Aunt Sally just earned $100 for posting another cat meme or because Jack was rewarded $50 for his 60-word snippet about his shiny new stapler.
Make this place better for the average social media user so that it can gain widespread adoption...or watch it shrivel and die as we all try to micromanage voting and rewards on a platform with an unfriendly UI. Resolve the development issues. Everything else should fall into place after that.