I just read your original articles and feel your idea has merit. What I think we need is a platform that allows experimentation with a number of different rule systems, such as the one you are proposing here. Perhaps users could choose to opt in to certain subcommunities, each with their own set of rules. For instance suppose you set up a Steem UA subcommunity that attracts 10,000 users. The reward pool granted to those 10,000 users might be distributed according to your UA algorithms. Someone else might set up a different community with different rules. Over time, with enough experiments through subcommunities, people will gravitate to the ones that work best for them. By allowing experimentation with different sets of rules, we gain both evidence for what works and doesn't work. By not forcing rule sets on the entire set of users, the overall blockchain is not subject to suffering if one rule set doesn't work--so we gain anti-fragility. Subcommunities also set up a free market for users, thus ensuring competition and, hopefully, innovation.

But you should not need to beg @ned to make the changes you suggest. You or anyone else need to be able to set up the rules and then invite users to participate. At this point, I don't know enough to know whether this is something that eosDAC or SMTs might be capable of doing, but I think the idea is necessary and that blockchains that don't support such experimentation are likely to fade as others provide for more experimentation.

Setting this up to avoid gaming the system is probably difficult. For example, we would want to avoid a whale setting up a subcommunity for themselves with rules that just return rewards to the whale even though they provide no content or curation.