I have this running theory that success is determined linearly but rewards are distributed quadratically.

The basic pattern shows up in a lot of places; we call it the Pareto principle. Tim Ferriss grabbed the idea and used it as a time management principle but prior to that it was understood as a basic principle of resource distribution. Pareto was among the first to note that the top 10% of farmers in his country commanded 90% of the business. The rest were squeaking by.

If something appears that makes it easier for more people to succeed, then the rewards are STILL distributed following a quadratic curve, with the top people taking an outsized share. It's just that the top is different. Because the top isn't about absolute quality; it's about virtuosity, which is relative to both the norm (i.e. how good is good, and who can push it the farthest?) and to cultural values (what do we consider it important to be good at?).

On the flip side, this means that our own growth also has a certain exponential potential for return. Though maybe that's just wishful thinking.