RE: A simple, radical change to Steem that could fix most of our problems.
If I'm not mistaken, bidbot owners will be fine under your system, as they will make a better return than they currently make. Better because they will not have to lose out to entrepreneurs like yourself, who successfully underbid the value of their stakes, and also better because your proposal frees them from paying for witnesses also.
On the other hand, I see no reason why the controllers of the @steemit account would go along with this, since I presume they consider they own this stake, and it is not communal property. I concede I am only guessing as to the legal ownership of the @steemit account, so please feel free to school me lol.
All in all, your proposal seems to be the most fair and libertarian of proposals. Libertarian, since it does not conceive supporting the rewards pool as an essential duty of any Steem investor.
If is not the duty of a Steem investor to support the rewards pool (as for example, it was the duty of Facebook shareholders to support the acquisition and retention of active users, for many years before they ever saw a dividend), then one has to acknowledge that while your libertarian system is the most fair imaginable, it is not the most business savvy, as the degree to which rshare owners opt out of supporting the acquisition and retention of active users will be proportional to a slowdown in potential growth.
This in turn will make way for a competitor to compel participation in active user growth, by prospective stakeholders, mirroring the Facebook example above, in such a way that the competitor will inevitably ultimately outcompete your newly redesigned Steem ecosystem.
That said, I do think there is a brilliant elegance to your solution, and it would be infinitely preferable to the current slightly rancorous state of affairs.
Congrats on thinking so laterally and elegantly! :)
Most bidbot owners have large stakes because it's delegated to them. The delegators will do well when they remove the delegation, but it will remove all the value from running a vote-selling service. The bidbot owners will still get value from the SP they've managed to accumulate themselves, but most of their income comes from selling the votes of other people.
That's really complicated. Essentially there's a community expectation that Steemit Inc. will not use that stake; as such they leave it sitting at 100% voting power all the time, and have shown no inclination to change that. My solution essentially just leaves them doing the same thing in a different fashion.
To look at the other half of your comment, I think it's more or less indisputable that the social interaction of non-consensual participants here adds negative value to the acquisition and retention of active users. They're not doing any of that work, and they're taking time and mental energy away from many of the people who want to.
It seems like this would also be true of any competitor that tried to implement an involuntary system. They would have bid-bots, and fight about bid-bots, and we could keep making ourselves better while they did.