Rewarding users for participation on both sides is a fantastic incentive for people to engage actively on your website, but you have stifled this participation in three ways which, when used together, are highly redundant.  These are: (1) the ten-minute waiting period between tips (especially tips to the same author), (2) the limit on number of tips which can be given per day and (3) the daily limit on the number of posts an author may submit.  There is no need to explain, as I am reasonably intelligent and thus fully grasp the reason and purpose for these limitations.  Still, I think that all three together are excessive.  We authors and readers are all here for the same ultimate goal: to earn money, same as you.

   I realize that your resources are finite.  Placing no limits on rewarded participation would deplete these resources faster than whatever ad revenue you generate could replace them.  I get it.  I think you could still turn a profit, however, if you removed the cap on the number of tips users can give out per day.  Alternatively, you could leave the limit on the number of tips and remove the waiting period and the daily limit on posts per user.  If you'll bear with me, we can examine the pros and cons of these options together.

   The first option and the one I lean toward, the removal of the limit on tips per day, would provide greater incentive to users to engage with as many articles as possible, rather than reaching their tip limit and then simply not bothering to read or watch anything else that day.  It would also, of course, be the more expensive of the two proposals, but I believe that it would pay for itself by keeping users on the site longer, thereby increasing their likelihood of following one or more ads.  Removing the daily tip cap would also reduce what I can only describe as "post/tip rush hour," those peak hours of the day when the largest number of users are coming home from work/school and jumping on here all at once.  This is when smart but ultimately lazy authors bombard the site with posts, hunting for tips and subsequently burying original, legitimate, well-developed articles in a sea of content that is little more than a recap of crypto-related headlines from their chosen news feeds (you know who you are).

   The second option is less expensive up front.  If you were to remove the waiting period between tips, both per user and to the same author, and get rid of the limit on the number of posts authors can publish per day, users would be much less likely to pass up tipping on an article simply because they do not feel like waiting for the timer to reach zero.  It would also provide authors with more motivation to produce quality content because readers could tip as many articles by the same author as they pleased, making it more important than ever to develop a large following.  Authors would be further prodded to create more and higher-quality posts by being forced to compete with one another for readers' limited number of daily tips.  This spirit of competition is the very basis of capitalism and, as we all know, capitalism applied to any type of market economy increases the quality of products therein.  If authors must constantly produce better and better content, more and more new users will be drawn to the platform, which again increases the likelihood of ad revenue.  Everybody wins.  Well, the ones who work hardest win, at least.

   I'm positive there are other options available, but these two seem the most obvious and viable to me.  I suppose we shall soon see if the Publish0x community agrees.