Back on ’07 I posted on how the NSF thwarts Congress’ efforts to “pay for results” in research via prizes: NSF pulled the usual agency trick of stalling until Congressional pressure faded. and those who get the usual money the usual way made sure the official recommendation was for no change in that; only a little money, and only new money, should go to new methods.
I fail to understand the SEC's rationale for rewarding going to compliance before going to the regulator.
If the whistleblower has found something illegal, then the crime has been committed (whether in fact or in planning). It seems to significantly undermine their position as law-enforcement for the SEC to publicly say "We'd prefer crimes be handled internally instead of being reported to legally vested authorities."