Nice! I appreciate the tag, TrostParadox; This looks like an exciting experiment in second-layer token governance! Both of these models you've presented more accurately rhyme with normal market behavior. I.e., We buy the goods and materials (or, in this case, content) that we either like, resonate with, or find intellectually stimulating. I think that something like this, as opposed to firebombing storefronts, seems far more productive in showing evidence of evolution.
BTW, this in no way compares to BLURT. Steem had a first-mover advantage, and that resulted in many chain splits. None of which got to harness or improve upon that first-mover advantage. The only different chain split of all of them where the latter was able to maintain their steam was STEEM/HIVE, and that's because the whole thing was so damn contentious and filled with; Chicanery, duplicity, shenanigans, conspiracy, intrigue, and the like. Because of all this and the exchange involvement therein, we collected enough media attention to get pity listings on exchanges.
However, to compare this move to BLURT ignores the significant fact that POB operates in tandem with (and resides upon) the HIVE blockchain. I am hopeful that this kind of example will give the devs at hive the epiphany they need to see to realize that promoting blockchain ethics, even if they are somewhat unenforceable, is not such a bad idea. PoB, as outlined in the blue paper, has long since been a problem because it doesn't harness the crowd wisdom as intended.
And this is why I was super happy to see the POB community step in and lead the way into redefining what proof of brain can mean at the second layer token level. The success will get recognized, and all of the FUD about BLURT is illogical, and quite frankly, incomparable to POB's reality as a side chain token. If these proposals discourage the antisocial types from buying POB, then that means we have more affordable and rare POB's for whitehat blockchain users to buy up.