I think you have the opportunity to play with community moderation. Hacker News uses upvoting and downvoting to do this, but you can only downvote after a certain amount of reputation. You can use sats earned as some quasi-reputation score and use that to give such people some power to downvote for some sats. Personally, I think downvotes should be way more costly than upvotes. It's a serious accusation to be making and most people don't do it unless it's serious. You also don't want it to be abused. Thus, making it more expensive will make people think twice about it.

The idea of staking to post is good as well. It has the nice side-effect of preventing spam. So posting might cost 10 sats, but also 10000 sats in a stake. If you try to flood the place, you're going to lose 10,000 sats per post. It can really become a market based moderation system. Bad posts simply go down. Obviously, this is not going to be easy to balance, but you have way more tools than Hacker News or Reddit does. Also, if you figure this out, it will monetarily incentivize good comments even more than they are now.