Recently, I finished a project that, not too dissimilar from steemit, is a also a form of direct democracy. Steemit, of course, has strong parallels with the likes of Reddit or, going back, Digg, with the difference that real monetary value is attached to the extent in which users interact with the original content.
The project I worked on is The Speculative Fund. Related to a series of theatre festivals in Italy, festival goers spend 1 euro of each of their tickets on the fund and then, collectively, decide what the available money should be spent on, with participation in the decision process only being allowed when you actually contributed, that is, bought a ticket to one of the shows.
However, as with steemit, there are two immediate issues, that are not obviously addressable.
First, the system only works for those who participate. But, this is a problem with any form of participation.
Second, the majority wins. That is, catering minority views is difficult. On The Speculative Fund, we deal with that through not awarding success to proposals (posts) with the most 'votes', but by giving everyone an equal ability to qualify or disqualify a proposal, though each of these actions 'costs' a vote. However, on steemit, because posts with the most interaction float to the top, this is less obvious; niche markets are easily left uncovered. And, because popularity means more money, catering to niche markets becomes less interesting.
So, my question is, how to make sure, on steemit, that not only the most popular posts get attention?