Designing a legislative, judicial and executive power structure over a decentralized system has unanticipated knock-on risks. I think that as the media wars heat up, Steemit should be doing more to discourage centralization of power via the cooperation of multiple accounts, not more.
I say this not because your goals are not just and well-intended, but because it seems to me the mechanism being recommended could easily be turned on the community.
Consider the following scenario: the current Steem market cap is ca. 650 million. Steem Dollars ca. 250 million; ca. 900 million total. In comparison Goolag (800 billion market cap) and Fakebook (540 billion market cap) could start botting Steemit on an industrial scale. Postulate a minimum buy- in of 100 million. Even with 10 loyal whales, how much could they counteract the abuse of 100 accounts with 1 million in backing each that circle vote their reps up silently over time, then start coordinated flagging of unwanted narratives and users? The Helsing idea is great in theory, but what do you do when a bad Helsing clone (i.e. a bunch of whale accounts operated by a single mind) wants to completely destroy Steemit because it is the competition, not save it, control it or profit from it, but really ruin it?
I don't know the answer to the problems on Steemit right now, but I keep hoping the power of centrally directed and collectivist botting will be dealt with sooner rather than later before a bad actor decides to throw a wrench in the works.
Your post was a great read, keep up the good work!