Let me start off with agreeing with the concept of trusting an account as a legitimate contributor instead of pushing for one account for one identity. This account for example is a group account of our studio. There is one person (me) editing it and communicating unless I find content that someone else from the studio should curate (for example I find an interesting post about music and send the link to one of our musicians for curation). I also intend to open another account soon where I will be able to express ideas and personal content that might not be fit for us as the studio and if I couldn't do that transparently (if system was: one person = one account) I would be deeply disappointed in steemit as a platform. 



Next point is the system you have proposed. Part of the system that I like is the logistics, namely sharing the work load of verifiers. Although in a long run I don't support the proposed idea, I find this way of sharing the work load interesting and potentially applicable, but not for this purpose. Now lets move to problems and concerns I have with the proposal. 



First one is the fact that there is no way to determine the intentions of account before it is created. Which leaves us with two options, one is not to verify any account until it proves its benevolence and the second one is to verify every account until it is clear that it has shady intentions or exhibits poor behaviour.



Problem with the first option is that such approach would give a little incentive for the new users to create original content when they freshly start out, as rewards system is the main incentive to do so. Giving unverified users (which in this case is a category in which all new users belong) ability to trade without ability to be rewarded for content and curation would change Steemit into a platform which favors crypto traders over creative bloggers. That would be a great loss as steemit is exactly the platform that aspiring creatives have sought for a long time. But once you lock them from rewards until they prove themselves bloggers would have little motivation for moving from the platforms where they already have audience to Steemit. This fact is enough to completely disregard this option.



Second option on the other hand, allows abusers to continue creating infininte ammount of new accounts and continue with their activities after their original accounts are unverified. Even further they are able to transfer their old funds to their new accounts as it is the option that would still be left to the unverified accounts. Damage they cause would be mitigated only in the fact that their new accounts would have none of the old followers (which is a considerable punishment). Now we might consider this damage to their accounts meaningful enough, but the problem would not be solved and there is another set of indirect problems that arise from this option.



First one is that verifiers would have to become "steemit sheriffs" in order for this way of dealing with problems to have any meaning. They would have to actively search for accounts that are breaking the moral conduct of community and deal out punishment by revoking the verification. In the end that would make them similar to whale flaggers, but with added power that they only have to use less "flags" to remove someone from the active participation in community. 

In addition their punishment would be active only if another verifier doesn't give the account its verification back, which makes this system unreliable.



Next problem that arises from the second option is its effect on the community. Thing that happens when you have dedicated persons/accounts (in this case verifiers) with a duty to fight a problem is reduced need of community to address the problem themselves. In this specific case that would lead to reduced number of users flagging those who use the platform abusively. 



My belief is that steemit will sort itself out with more users from different branches joining, and the peak of the hype for the crypto-currencies diminishing. 

At the moment, big part of the community are the people who post about crypto-currencies. In the current state of affairs, most of the crypto-currency bloggers have no genuine interest in the cryptocurrency. They are just the outcome of the current easy-money-crypto-currency-hype (which reminds me of The Gold Rush during 1800's). I believe that less than 10% of them are actually passionate about the topic (I don't base this conclusion on data, just on my perceived increase of interest and reasons for that increase among my circle of friends and acquaintances, so I might be wrong). I also believe that most abusers of this platform are those who are in for the easy money (true contributors realize the effort behind succesful blogging). Of course, there are people with such mindset in other fields as well, but not in such numbers. Now if previous assessments are correct it follows that most of the abusers come from population who is in for easy money and most of those come from recent crypto-currency craze.

As I stated before, this is the best platform for creatives and hobbyists of the world. The place where painters, musicians, photographers, film makers, beer tasters, etc. can get rewards for just being themselves and putting effort in activities they love. If we put our effort in attracting more of such crowd, crowd that is passionate about what they do, instead of focusing on enforcement of stricter rules, ratio of abusers compared to legitimate accounts will reduce. With the passage of time the cryptocurrency hype bubble will slowly inflate and more of the "Gold rushers" will leave. In the end amount of abusers compared to beneficial contributors will reduce to the extent where it becomes insignificant and easy to handle. 



In conclusion I believe that stricter verification of accounts will bring more harm to the honest folk than to abusers, while passage of time in current system combined with putting effort in attracting more beneficial users will bring prosperity to steemit. I am still fresh steemit user and there might be parts of the problem I haven't noticed, but based on my eleven days spent here and some amount of knowledge of society, history and functioning of the systems this is my prediction.

Also take note that, while I disagree with your solution, you have earned my respect by putting in the effort to solve the serious problem this community is facing.