Last fall, I tried a high-volume experiment: 49 articles in 54 days. That really didn't pay off for me, financially or exposure wise. But I got some things written down that I have been wanting to write for a long time.

Medium needs to cut a deal with the pub owners. Give the owners some financial incentive for crafting the pub in a way that will be enticing for readers.

If a pub owner wants to create a little community, he/she can select those writers who are going to help build that community. From my experience, the formula is "forcing" the writers to comment on other articles. If the writers are not doing this, then the pub owner should reject future submissions from that writer.

Politically Speaking could go in this direction, if that is what Scott et al want to do. It would need a few months to make the transition, as PS is still dependent on the write-every-day writers. But when the community starts happening, these writers can be let go.

Most of the people posting every day on Medium are probably not making much money. If money is the object, they should get a job.

Yes, there are a few writers getting their rent paid. And I believe Medium deliberately proffers their articles on our feeds to entice us to play the Medium lottery. I get high rollers on my feed--I have not subscribed to them.

Medium needs a formula with some income redistribution. There are just as good of writers who have similar skills as the high rollers.