Excellent points you have here. I totally agree with you that rewards should not be limited. I must not fail to recognize that there is quality content that goes unnoticed many times, but there are also creators who have a way of writing and expressing that engages the reader, and therefore, every time one comes across a publication of theirs it is impossible to stop reading it and voting for it. There is time and work invested in each of the publications we make and no one in particular should decide how much someone should receive for a given post. No, that is a freedom of the final consumer, the reader, who in the end is the one who should decide if what an author writes likes it or not and deserves to be rewarded.
It's as if you had two singers of the same genre and one gets more applause than the other. Is the more applauded one forbidden to receive them? Do you limit the amount of applause per performance or song?
Regarding automatic voting, everyone is free to do with his or her voting power what he or she wishes. However, I do believe that the percentage to be applied should be low. Not always a content creator writes good material to receive a high UV. There are ups and downs (the muse sometimes falls asleep). I think we should all make an effort to curate a little more manually.
I loved your post. Congratulations!