Reviewer allocation in Decentralising scientific publishing

In the paper Decentralising scientific publishing: can the blockchain improve science communication?, I did not understand the "Reviewer Allocation" part.

The paper will be submitted to the network by the authors and the reviewers would search for these works and choose the right one to review, right? It seems a little inefficient since a reviewer would have to read several papers until finding a good one to analyze, wouldn't they? I'm not an expert on the topic, so I may be saying nonsense, but how would the reviewer know which work is interesting and good for reviewing? Should a recommendation algorithm be integrated?

I also did not understand the following sentence: " The first reviewers to turn in good reviews (according to the rating scale) will get paid." Suppose there is a good paper and several reviewers want to correct it. A lot of effort will be made, but only one will receive the price. I know this is good for some things, but it appears that science is losing time with that. It would be more reasonable (I guess) that an independent (random, possibly) editor had to send for a reviewer on the topic.

Thanks for the paper!