the solution is worse than the problem in my opinion and shows a complete misunderstanding of how human groups work. This "solution" is convincingly refuted in the Steem whitepaper and if it was implemented it would live to the quick demise of steemit.
The first problem is explained in page 19 of the white paper under "Micropayments don't work" - the explanation quotes a very solid paper by Clay Shirky, "The Case against Micropayments". Tipping doesn't work "there is a certain amount of anxiety involved in any decision to buy - here, to tip - no matter how small, and it derives not from the interface used or the time required but from the very act of deciding". Tipping, with a proxy for money like Steem, require a comparison: "Is this article worth 0.1 or 0.01 steem ? I gave the first one 0.1 and this one is better and longer so should I give it 0.15 or 0.2 steem ? And what am I going to do, I'll have no more steem left afterwards, I either need to buy more or else I'm going to scrounge by reading artciles and not tipping the authors because my wallet is empty and I'm too lazy to go buy BTC, transfer it to Bittrex or Polo or Binance, buy Steem with it then transfer the steem to steemit".
Basically, tips will enter a downward spiral due to transaction friction, authors will make less and less so they'll feel discouraged and not incentivized to continue creating content and it would be the demise of Steemit.
Your "solution" will lead to the demise pure and simple. It is fundamental that by "creating new steem" the blockchain primes the pump.
It is also very important to have steem power to increase the financial friction when exiting the platform so "nudge" people to stay longer than they would have otherwise.