In regards to delegation. I was thinking about this the other day. Delegation could exist via a model similar to crowdfunding, and evidently, the same way that earlier investors here get reward for.. becoming early investors.

As an example, a new user joins. No one knows if they bring quality (if an identity already has a successful online identity then it's a no-brainer). They introduce themselves and outline their road map. They state: "I bring this, will be this active, and I intend to stay". If it's a blogger then a proof post might aid their cause. If it's a project, well then it's based on much more that just words.

So if a backer decides "I believe in you.. I'll delegate x amount of my SP to your cause". From there an agreement on return can be outlined. Maybe as a 'smart contract' but not mandatory. It's not like people can just cash out anyway. So as an early investor, you have a larger stake in their potential earnings. Along the way new investors have less and less. Or depending on the amount of delegation.

New members, can then utilize that delegated SP to grow their blog/project. Not to pay themselves. Early followers could also receive a small fraction of the reward. Not automatic. Engagement would always be necessary. The delegated SP would go towards rewarding comments that are engaging. (Essentially by a system of attraction. Rather then the way that exist now. Which is, work your ass off for a year or pay the damn fee to get noticed).

This would drive thoughtful comments. As any one that sees that a thoughtful comment received say $5.00 reward, as opposed to ZERO for parasite comments that clearly don't even read the content. It would create buzz around quality bloggers. Hence = rewards for engagement = rewards for those that delegate SP. It would also never allow a blogger, who reaches heights to simply post.. and not engage their followers. Something evident in the current system.

It time, quality bloggers/projects could even exist as tradeable asset. Where say one investor has backed X amount which is doing fantastic. They have long received their return and are in surplus. Someone new comes along, invests in first STEEM. Wants to back something, as he/she has money but not so much the time or maybe talent to post and grow their investment. So they can now buy the stake that someone else has in an active member. Placing them in 'the game' from the get go as they work to find their own worthy candidates to invest in.

So essentially whales, who are cashed up grow a portfolio of valuable steemians. Grow their wallet but at the same time the platform and the community. In turn, the price of STEEM. So it pays to support quality. It also hurts to support members who don't live up to their claims. So @freedom throwing money at shitpost accounts for instance. Would and should suffer.

From the outside looking in, it also improves the platform image and would truly have that quality feel. This would drive external buzz and I believe would sell itself as the true alternative to the standard players in social media. That old line "build it and they will jizz" (or something like that) would reign supreme. Because one thing is undeniable. Steemit has a very bad reputation outside of the minds of loyalists. You can't pretend it's not the reason why it hasn't grown and become more mainstream.

This is my idea of a platform that attracts and retains quality without corruption.