I'm amazed at how quickly you come up with ideas to resolve specific issues, and both options sound feasible to me.

Comparing both options, I'm leaning toward the first one because it's less "spammy" in the comment section of the post itself. I've noticed that some communities or authors are muting token-tipping bot comments, which can mislead people about the actual level of engagement on a post. It can make it seem like the post is receiving many comments when, in fact, most are just tipping bots.

Additionally, I think the first option is less prone to abuse since the rewards would come directly from the author's post rewards. If the author genuinely wants to encourage engagement, it makes sense for them to share part of their post rewards with those who provide insightful comments.

I'm also thinking about tokenizing this system in a way that incentivizes or recognizes authors who participate. While the token might not hold the same value as $Hive or $HBD, we could develop a use case that discourages abuse by authors. I don't have a clear idea yet of what the token's use case could be, but I'll try to come up with something in the coming days.

One idea that comes to mind right now is creating a leaderboard to recognize authors and commenters who are doing well in earning @commentrewarder tokens. This could be posted on the @commentrewarder blog, with a portion of the post rewards distributed to the top-ranking authors and commenters. This would provide a space where both authors' and commenters' efforts are recognized and incentivized.

It's also a good way to track and monitor participation, as well as spot potential abuse. Any abuse can be identified and corrected if proven.

Overall, I think your proposed idea is a great start. It's a solid way to help authors engage more with their audience while ensuring thoughtful comments are fairly rewarded.