Let's approach the question from another angle so that perhaps you can understand my perspective.

Let's leave aside the issue of what percentage of the reward pool someone gets. That gets into Tragedy of the Commons territory and I don't want to go there. Since you didn't bring it up yourself, we'll leave it aside.

Here's the deal – what difference to you is it if he manages to make $9 million USD a year? Leaving aside the rewards pool, like we said, why is it your business to decide how much someone else can take voluntarily from people who willingly offer material support?

I want you to think carefully about your answer and realize that you will be going into a dangerous space in so doing.

I have long said that "you should never build a weapon that you aren't willing to have used against yourself." That applies equally to weaponized arguments.

"I don't think he deserves that much," opens you to the counterargument that someone else might decide that you don't deserve any of what you're getting – and by your reasoning, they would be justified in making sure you didn't get it.

You have to avoid that argument. If that is your argument, if that is the feeling that you have in your heart of hearts, you are going to get screwed, blued, and tattooed in the long run. You have given "your enemies" (for lack of a better collective term) a stick to beat you with.

Now, you might have a reasonable argument if it was, "I don't believe he deserves the portion of the reward pool that he is entitled to by the number of upvotes that he's received." That's still a very dangerous weaponized argument to make, but it's one you could, in theory, justify with some effort. Again, it's a weapon that can be turned around and used against you and people with whom you agree with trivial effort. Effectively it boils down to, "I don't believe that the positive support of the people who like that content are as important as myself and the people who agree with me."

You can obviously see where that could be a problem in the long term, right?

Now, you might take the position that, by your measure, "he simply doesn't provide enough good to the community to have access to that much influence" – but this might be the most dangerous weaponized argument for yourself and those you support that could be put forward. It's terrible. It allows anyone with a subjective opinion about "what you accomplish" and more power than you to come along and shut you up, as long as the whim takes them for.

I'm having difficulty justifying your position in a rational manner, and I'd really like you to help me out.