Thanks for your detailed response. I should say right off the bat, because I didn't say this before and it's relevant, that I do not agree with the usage of a "honestly" metric to factor into payouts or vote weighting, as you suggested in your first post. I see it's usefulness in providing facts (i.e. a score) for a human led action (such as a witness could do) to divest a user of their SP (not including delegated SP of course) and prevent social media operations (voting, posting, etc.), while allowing the wallet to exist.

Your proposed algorithm is a good indicator of dishonest accounts but it would not be good to enforce this view on the populous. I don't believe the view is comprehensive enough for that. So I would very much oppose the two hard forks you suggest, as you suggest them. And I can tell you that in it's current form it will certainly not be adopted.

On the technical aspects, your calculations only hold up (if they do hold up, I didn't check) for follow information, not when including the much more voluminous vote information. I think votes are a better indicator of "the network", i.e. the topology, than follows.

The reason why it would work well for the Utopian bot is that Utopian is very heavily moderated and has high and restrictive standards on it's members / users. This is not the approach for the Steemit social network in general, so I assume you would prefer to go towards that. I don't think that will fly.

Looking forward to the MVP and updates on how the algorithm plays out, especially profiler / benchmark information.