If a company designs their bonus system to encourage individualism and thus explicit competition for scarce dollars, then it creates a game that people think they have to win at the expense of their peers. In these cases, they have a bonus pool (the "budget"), differentiated pay philosophy (pay for performance), and rarely have an objective criteria for assigning rewards (manager decides and makes a case). In that situation you get a lot more in-fighting because it's the way the game is designed.
If you remove the competitive angle by assigning rewards equally (say, at a certain level of seniority you get a fixed bonus %; or, the company assigns a 20% bonus to everyone to share in the profits), then you are no longer giving people a game to win against their peers.
And both are vital parts of a company. You can't have a bunch of co-located people without someone taking care of sanitation.
Of course, you may choose a 100% "remote work" company to avoid that issue but in this instance each employee is their own janitor anyway.
There is a flipside benefit too: the lesser paid people - other devs? You? Me? - will be happy to see the rockstar dev get such a wage/salary because they know they are worth it and it adds to their own company bonus.
And when people are not such a rockstar after all, they will see scrutiny on all sides.
I am not sure about that. I think the in-fighting would then come from people upset that other people that "did not contribute nearly as much as I did got the same bonus".
People will always find a way to no be happy about something.