I'm starting from the premise that one can have multiple digital representations of themselves in an "ipsn", with each instance being an opportunity to try to influence others. Each representation can be either anonymous or tied to a physical self, giving it potential "weight". In addition each representation could have a "reputation" tagged onto it, applied by peers on the ""ipsn". The audience is motivated to efficiently sift through the multitude of voices, so they will reward those who behave properly by helping to adjust their reputation upwards, by replying to them, by not blocking them, and by forwarding that information.
It is the responsibility of the audience to keep the "village"/group clean. When strangers appear, evaluate them. On the sum, the village thrives.
It behooves the influencer to gain as much "weight" as they can, knowing that their efforts will be wasted otherwise. It behooves the audience to examine anonymous information for potential value, while paying more attention to information coming from influencers that have "weight".
Each account that an influencer creates would have an account name and avatar, which would carry a bit of weight if the audience recognizes the influencer and remembers any previous valuable information provided by that influencer. As long as the "ipsn" required unique account names, trust can start being developed with anonymous accounts.
The audience would be able to observe account name, avatar, reputation value, and the information posted by the account, to determine whether or not to pay attention to that particular post.
On decision making that affects the entire "village", e.g. voting, anonymous accounts would carry no weight in that process.
An "ipsn" chat is for general purpose information gathering/sharing, with varying levels of anonymity. An "ipsn" group is for posting articles, with multi-level comment thread available for each post.
One other critical element to managing the "village" is a wiki, where the village can collaborate on managing social issues and information repositories via the wiki. The way I am currently handling these 3 critical elements is using MeWe chat/group and using MediaWiki. The MediaWiki element requires a vetted committee to manage the information repositories. A distributed wiki can be a topic for a future conversation.
Bottom line, there is value to be derived from both anonymous and non-anonymous accounts in an "ipsn"