I think the concept of a "vote" turns a complex structure into next to nothing. We need to reinvent voting.

I like the creative thinking here. But, paying to vote? Simply, few will pay to vote.

The original voting in the U.S. was for a few; educated, property owners. They had a stake in the country and something to lose for foolish voting - their property. They were also educated and informed which is a recognized sine qua non of democracy. Opening voting to the masses, while sounding "democratic" only turned elections into massive duping of the masses to get votes.

On Steemit, we should be interested in evaluating posts and making subjective judgements for rewards. This is a tall order that can never be fully satisfied.

I think the best direction is have a scientific voting system. Articles on Steemit are whatever; a joke, a comment, rant, bullshit, serious opine, trash, fluff. They run the gamut. Science on the other hand has some basis. There is the scientific method. A relationship to reality is fostered by having the need for replication of experiments. Otherwise, people could just make them up. Furthermore, experiments have weight. How the findings of an experiment are utilized has merit. Are they used to make trinkets or save lives? Who is evaluating an experiment is important. Is it an undergraduate or a Nobel Prize winner in the field.

In short, I think if we came up with an effective way of evaluating and rewarding scientific endeavors we would have a "voting" system that had a basis. Then we could work on applying something similar to the activities of the masses.