I would submit that Steemit's Central Premise is that: Content Shall Be Compensated Commensurate With Its Quality.

I would submit that this is not Steemit's central premise. (Nor is it the central premise of Steem.) I find the terms "shall be," "commensurate," and "quality" to be inappropriate/inaccurate for the sake of the arguments here.

I just recently commented on the assumptions of "quality" on this platform. I think everyone is getting it wrong. Quality - or what is deemed "valuable," as mentioned in the whitepaper - is not what most people talk about when they critique user posts and the hot/trending pages on Steemit.

You should read the Steem Whitepaper (if you haven't already...if you have, read it again) and pay particular attention to the Introduction and the sections titled Subjective Contributions (in its entirety, starts on page 10) and The Power of Steem (starts on page 22) - both the beginning paragraphs and the sub-section The Value is in the Links.

The central premise of Steem, in my opinion and based on the initial proposal in the Whitepaper, is that users of the Steem blockchain (not Steemit) should receive some compensation for their subjective, valuable contributions to the system. Whether or not these contributions are valuable and are rewarded depends on the voting consensus of all other stakeholders in the blockchain.

Proposal No. X

None of these are adequate or even practical solutions, for many of the technical reasons already mentioned by other commenters. But the primary reason is that Steem is not a philosophical or ideological platform.

It is an economic one.

The problems we have with perceived abuses are directly related to ineffective economic incentives and incentive structures where such "abuses" can be properly mitigated. We had some of these incentives (and disincentives), but several of those blockchain protocols have been removed/changed in previous hard forks.

You can read some of my insight/observations and solutions here:

https://steemit.com/steem/@ats-witness/block-change-you-can-believe-in

Steem and its many interfaces also have a great lack of appeal to real-world businesses, advertisers, and investors - the demographics that actually fuel social media products, valuation, and value. While the Whitepaper mentions that this system is designed to not need advertising, I can only imagine that a vibrant social community with actual businesses and advertisers using it, combined with a protocol-based ad revenue and distribution model, would propel Steem to the forefront of real-world blockchain utility, bring STEEM prices much higher, and actually have metrics for valuation instead of simple speculation. It would be something that is pretty much non-existent in the crypto world.

This probably isn't the reply you were hoping for, but maybe it will help you understand the differences between blockchain protocols/incentives and interface design/features - and how to frame any criticism and proposed solutions.

Being completely honest with you, your proposals are a little insane and completely contradictory to what blockchains and cryptocurrencies are trying to solve and what can even be done with Steem protocols regarding user activity and interaction with the blockchain. If these proposals are what you think is needed or desired for social media or for user behavior, then I'm afraid you've stumbled into the wrong part of the internet and you haven't taken the time to understand how Steem actually works.