I trust that ecosystems like Steemit, in which monetary value is associated with each users' account, holds the key to creating a troll-resistant community. However, I believe that a troll-resistant ecosystem must involve some sacrifice - an investment - on each users' part in order to enter the ecosystem and this must be accompanied by rules that explicitly forbid and punish trolling and abusive behavior.

Like Steemit, users would be able to capitalize on their content and endorsements of other content, therefore making the entrance fee the only fee required of any user. Users who make bad decisions on endorsing could regenerate their funds through microtransactions as well or opt to have their account closed after a certain number of days.

I feel that once one invests one's earnings, however little, in an ecosystem in which they are an active member, one feels a greater connectivity to that ecosystem than if one had not invested to gain entry to that ecosystem. Furthermore, if investors are made aware that unscrupulous acts can and will be punished by the ecosystem, they might be more averse to committing such acts themselves. Users would be less eager to throw away a $10 investment for the temporary pleasure they may derive by trolling another's post every time users feel the urge to do so.

These abuse-intolerant rules would keep out those who feel as though they would not be able to abide by the laws of the ecosystem before they ever enter it. Add this dissuasion to the fact that trolls would be kicked from the network and one could generate quite a troll-resistant system, I believe.

For this to work, there must be efficient moderators of the community who quickly respond to abuse reports by users. Perhaps a moderator community would be better to prevent one person holding too much power within the community, especially considering that banned users would lose money. Alternatively, banning might occur once a user has accumulated enough reports, with each report being validated by a moderator to ensure that wrongfully-accused users do not lose their investments.

As you mention in your post, there is a value to perceived chance of repercussion based on one's actions. Users who are wary of having their accounts closed and have good reason to prevent that from happening are less likely to break explicit community rules. This is opposed to communities where trolls thrive such as YouTube, Reddit, Facebook, new sites, and almost everywhere else on the Internet where a closed account means nothing more than a minor inconvenience of having to once more create an alternative account to continue anonymous trolling.