How much total STEEM will be available from Steemit, Inc. accounts for this delegation program?

If you're talking about delegating even more than is currently being delegated from @misterdelegation, then I have absolutely zero confidence in the ability of your company to assess actual problems plaguing this platform and coming up with any actual solutions. You appear to be completely tone deaf to economic incentives, market conditions, and user feedback. Instead of creating a new delegation program with a laundry list of rules and procedures, you ought to be pulling back all of your current delegations and giving that influence back to the rest of the user base.

A delegation should only be awarded if it will result in specific and MATERIAL (not ambiguous or theoretical) economic benefits to both Steem users, and Steemit, Inc. (the entity sacrificing the opportunity costs that result from delegating Steem Power).

There are two major problems with this statement.

First of all, the best economic benefit for STEEM would be to entice businesses to purchase STEEM. By freely giving away delegation, you undermine the entire concept of staking. You're telling businesses that, if they meet your requirements, then they don't have to actually purchase STEEM - to invest in the very platform they want to build on. This is the exact opposite of how bad businesses are weeded out and how legitimate businesses are able to thrive. It ultimately results in less pressure for business operators to succeed by essentially giving them a free "safety net" - at the expense of all other users of Steem.

Asking recipients of delegation to promise not to simply sell their acquired STEEM through this program and telling them that they should be evangelizing Steem will do very little to mitigate a variety of exploitation...and is quite a bit naive.

Secondly, there is no "sacrificing of opportunity costs." (I think you meant "sacrificing of potential gain/revenue" or "assuming the opportunity costs," as sacrificing opportunity costs would mean that there is a loss of costs - i.e., it's a net positive for you.) But I'm assuming that you mean there is an opportunity cost to delegating your stake...which is BS, unless your only plan was to continue the programmatic selling of STEEM. But even then, you're simply suppressing market prices even further and the losses taken from a lower STEEM price are largely your own doing.

And then there's the fact that this stake was never supposed to be used for voting in the first place - per the original ownership. For three years, every opportunity to not use the "ninja-mine," as originally described and rationalized, has been taken by your company. The code of the Steem blockchain has been changed several times just to make it easier for Steemit, Inc. to avoid using that STEEM as originally intended - and then to delegate it or sell it instead, decreasing the influence of all other stakeholders on the platform and adding significant downward price pressure on the Steem currencies.

Claiming that users have a better experience when their influence matters and then diluting that influence by making your previously dormant stake active in the allocation of rewards is ignorant and contradictory, at best. At worst, it reeks of manipulation and malice. I would hope that it's not the latter...although, the former is not much more confidence-inspiring.

Please consider that your continued actions are having a detrimental impact on this blockchain and token prices. The potential of this blockchain is continually stifled by poor leadership, Steemit mismanagement, and what appears to be abject obliviousness by much of the community (your company and many Steem witnesses included) - as we can see in this very comment section.

I would also like to note that, if Steemit, Inc. had to apply for this delegation, based on the questions and rules/procedures listed in this post, their request would be rejected.

That's something to seriously think about.