A lot of people say that "a post can't get 100 votes and 3$" so they are asking for more "equal vote" rights.
Obviously equal vote rights can't be used due to bot armies gaming the system. So what to do?
There are three scenarios where high votes / low rewards might appear:
1) Fake votes and bots. (since this behavior is not incentivized it is kept at a minimum right now)
2) Content that is popular and got a lot of votes but did not get whale attention. (this is the case that needs our attention)
3) Someone always getting a lot of votes for being popular / whether their content is good or bad.
The proposal
A tool needs to be made, for whales, that brings the whale attention to high-vote but undervalued posts of case #2.
The algorithm should be checking number of votes and SP accumulated (to trigger the "alarm" that something good is going on), plus the reputation of upvoters (let's say the avg rep of the top10 voters - or something similar). This will theoretically eliminate bot-votes of case #1.
Now, to filter case #3 - a predicate / condition could be applied to ignore members which have a very frequent occurrence of high upvote counts "just because" they are who they are.
The whale operating the curation tool might opt to not filter case #3 with a checkbox. It could be up to their discretion on whether to see these results or not.
Further filtering could include reputation levels (only displaying members from XX and upwards), precluding any posts with serious flagging, etc etc.
Once such a curation tool exists, I think a lot of undervalued but popular posts could actually get the attention that they deserve in terms of $$$.
Obviously, this tool should not produce any automated upvoting. It would just be a helping aid for curators to spot good content that has first been spotted by minnows and dolphins. As a side effect it would indirectly increase the curation power of minnows and dolphins, as well as their curation rewards.
Hopefully we'll see it soon!