I agree with this, Robert. However, in order for the mechanic to function, and not drive more writers to self-pub rather than go via an editor and pay their agent's commission, then either Medium needs to add the pub's 5% to the earnings already allocated to a story, so the editor gains, but the writer doesn't lose, i.e. if self-pubbed story earns 100 cents, that same story in a pub gets 100 + 5 to the pub, or guarantee overall at least a 5% increase in views, so the effect for the writer of going via a pub is net neutral.

The problem with that is the complete lack of transparency on medium's part. As there is no flat rate for what a 'read' pays, how do we know if they are lying (and as they are a corporation, we should assume that everything they say is a lie)?

Another issue is with large pubs that have several editors. Who gets the 5%? The pub owner? In which case, what does the editor who did the actual editing work get? Or does the editor that pressed the button get the fee? In which case, editors may end up competing (and squabbling, humans being human) to handle the juicier pieces and writers.

Or is it split somehow between the two? Or pooled, like tips at a restaurant?

I imagine these complications play a part in dissuading Medium from adopting what seems like a logical way to maintain momentum and consistency at its pubs.

Definitely worth trying to find a workable solution, though!