I apologize for my lack of knowledge on the history and maybe some of the inner workings of steem and steemit. That being said, I have a question. 

*What ever happened to the crab bucket?*

Though I think the idea was poorly portrayed in the white paper, I think it could have had the ability to stave off a lot of the problems we have now. I think if you looked at many of the top trending posts in a given category, most users would come to one of two conclusions; 
1) That post is not worth that much
or
2) My post in the same category is worth more. 

The ideal solution would be that each user would see themselves as an independent judge and assign rewards based on their assessment of the work. In the example, users (if they understood how it all worked) would most likely downvote the top posts because doing so would free up funds in the reward pool. 

*Why wouldn't they just upvote their own post?*

Downvoting the top post would be more effective because it is more likely that people would see it and come to the same conclusion. 

*Ideas for implementation*

1. Anonymize voting
2. Auto fill a question at the end of each post such as: Does this post deserve more or less of a reward then it currently has? If you agree with it's current status, abstain from voting. 
3. (Optional) ban or limit self votes