Talking to this thread is like talking to Karl Marx's ghost. Everyone thinks they can create an economy based on their own personal beliefs instead of an understanding of human behavior and economics.

1. anonymous and cheap downvotes will kill all aspects of the social side of this platform, and will do absolutely nothimg to stop (or even influence) selfish behavior. It might stop some self-voting. But it will also incentivise downvoting every other post or comment instead. Downvoting everyone else creates an advantage. And that is far worse than we have now. It simply changes things from a positive (upvote yourself) to a negative (downvote everyone else.).

2. anonymous and cheap downvotes will turn into political battles. No different than now, we have a tendency to upvote those we agree with, regardless of content quality. That would extend to downvoting everyone we disagree with. We see that now already even though downvoting is expensive. This would eventually kill any dissenting view other than mainstream.

3. increasing users to give value to the coin. Sure. Increasing the user base will temporarily increase the proce of steem. But, your proposals (only quality content will be upvoted) will ensure that 90% of new users will not be able to earn. 90% of users will never be able to create professional quality content. So there is no reason for them to be here. They create an account, get frustrated, and leave. There is no reason for them to ever invest money in the system. Your explanation also compmetely ignores the need for buyers. If I AM able to make Steem here by creating content, I need a buyer so that I can use those earnings in the real economy. Without buyers who expect some kind of benefit from holding Steem, price will drop to zero no matter how many new users are onboarded..

At that point, it is a completely closed economy of people exchanging worthless tokens..