Thanks for the feedback, Ariel. As I mentioned the other day, I think the problem with what we percieve right now is that the boost system is (a) excessively exclusive, (b) open to favouritism/abuse because of that, and (c) the only way to make a story monetarily viable. It's unfortunate that the mess with earnings, and the poor communication surrounding that, has coincided with the roll-out and ramp-up of the nomination programme. Unfortunate, but also avoidable, I would say, ny ensuring that one system had fully established itself, had its kinks straightened out and been accepted by the community, before embarking on the other. I don't see any obvious link of interdependence between the two making it essential that they should both have made their way to live in unfinished state at the same time. The boost multiplier in the earnings formula could have been added separately as a v2.0, once boosts and nominating publications were widespread enough for that not to become such an unwieldy factor.

A lot of this comes down to change management and communication. That is obviously made more difficult by the fact that Medium has to communicate with thousands of people who, while they contribute to and are integral element of the platform, don't actually belong to it, so you can't just send an 'everyone' email or hold a town hall and know everyone is getting the same message and has the same chance to raise concerns. It's a big ship to turn around - good luck!