BattleDawn's community has always been pretty split about it's feelings towards 2nd and 3rd place token rewards.
The proposition argues that they can be used as bargaining chips in diplomacy, they allow for the little guys in the era to strive for something (realistically) and therefore provides some form of incentive.
Others suggest a range of issues, like a lack of competition in eras, derive from these small, end of era handouts, and would consider various other options, such as removing them all together.
I had a fairly simple thought when reminiscing about a certain contest, set up by Malicewolf, on E1, Era 18, in which alliances could win points through winning battles, killing armies, hitting armies with nukes and getting conquers and crystals. The alliance with the most points won a jackpot of tokens.
This gave me the idea that, if we were to remove 2nd and 3rd place rewards from BattleDawn, perhaps rewarding those players that killed the most armies, fought the most battles, took the most conquers, etc, would be a good replacement.
I'm not really suggesting a specific system, but here are a few things I've been considering:
The development of a score, based on kills, battles, conquers, etc, that is separate to the current score, I'll refer to this as a Killscore.
As for who to distribute these blues to, it could either go on the most competitive alliance, as in the one (that isn't the winner of the era) that has the highest killscore. Or it could go on individuals, either rewarding them based on ranking, killscore, or individual achievements (like highest kills, most battles won, most crystals, most conquers, etc). Again, this should (in my opinion) not be attainable by the winner of the era.