Nice article @stellabelle. I appreciate that you included me in your list. I do not believe this is likely to happen as @piedpiper mentioned as this is wealth redistribution and I know that is anathema to the philosophy of the founders. It is a philosophy I share. It would make me feel great to be rewarded for my efforts. Yet, I would rather see something done to perhaps tweak things. Realize the white paper is not gospel and was instead the initial idea. If something is not working TRY new approaches during the beta to see if they work rather than saying they will not work before trying them. We have a WEEK of trying a new approach... if it is way bad then we revert it the next week when the new code rolls out.
At this point I just write, vote, and comment. I'm not sure how to fix the problems. I'd benefit from your suggestion personally, and I'd try to put that extra power to good use. Yet that'd be my subjective interpretation of good use. I'd like to say YES that would be good for the platform. It indeed might. Yet would this not likely have to be done again at some point down the road?
Right now the @null account nukes promotion funds and this takes funds out of circulation to prop up the currency, so it likely needs to be taken out. Yet if you were going to award someone then perhaps taking a % of that and awarding it out based upon activity. Yet even that likely could be exploited. Every solution I think of there are still ways to game it. So really what can we do that has the least potential of when it is gamed making a really big negative PR experience here. Having to flag posts is not good for PR, but what do you do without flagging such posts? They game the system and devalue the voting pool. Catch-22.