Draft because I will bring this topic only as a debate. I'm using the LEO tag also because it's something that affects the tribe's economy, so I believe it fits the theme, since I'm going to address the POB theme, but it can be used in other tribes as well, modifying the values ​​here presented.

As this is a draft, nothing here is definitive, and everything can be changed according to the comments, leaving the idea started crossed out and the new writing.

Maximum reward

I want to treat the topic maximum reward as a value as being the ceiling for a publication to be of value.

"What do you mean? Do you want to impose how much a publication can or cannot receive?"

No. I think more of a figurative value that the community understands as a "spending ceiling".

Since currency issuance causes inflation (a priori, obviously there are many other factors), trying to reduce its issuance may be something to combat this problem.

"So if you don't have to, what good is it?"

Let's go to practical examples, as this makes viewing easier.

The value has to be something that doesn't affect content creators too much so as not to discourage them from continuing, but neither does its implementation make a difference.

In POB I see this value as 200 POB.

Very few publications manage to exceed this value, and when they do, they don't go much further. What I believe that this cut would not make so much difference to the author, thus not discouraging him to continue writing.

I thought it was a small portion of publications that reached above 200 POB, but @onealfa.pob brought the following image in the comments, showing that there is a small group that is always above this ceiling

Click on image to check in larger size

"But if it's not going to impose a limit, how would it be resolved?"

I can see in two ways.

One of them is the curation look. As a curator, when I see a publication that has already reached this value, I don't vote for it, and I try to spread my vote for other posts, thus diversifying the authors that will be part of the pool.

The other is positive Downvote. When seeing that a post exceeded this value, people could perform a Downvote so that it goes back to 200 giving a functionality for the Downvote that does not generate hate or retaliation.

Obviously this value of 200 could be replaced by any other value you find better in the comments.

I would like to know your opinion about this idea. Obviously I could be 100% wrong and arguments will come in the comments that might change my mind, but at the moment I feel this is a good draft proposal that could be proposed.