Maybe the limit could be increased substantially for people that have 2fa?

> The downside from a user's perspective is that attempts to withdraw your funds would be rate limited by the same algorithm.

As long as the default is hot storage and people have to opt in for warm storage (much like Coinbase does there vault), I think this would be a great feature to add.

This is really good to hear, but I'd still hope to see a third-tier cold storage with manual offline transactions to refill the hot/warm wallets. Forgive me if there's already a method, but are offline signing tools on the to-do list anywhere, by the way?

Still 2FA is better. This makes very little sense. Security should come first.

A possible solution would be to add [2 factor authorization](https://steemit.com/security/@satoshifpv/a-call-for-two-factor-authentication-important).  This would be great for users and exchanges could move a majority of funds to an account secured by a secondary hardware PIN.

It's actually not the same at all. What you are proposing sounds similar to what Dan said they're implementing. I want to see Bittrex, Poloniex, and any other exchange use one or more accounts (with different active keys) as cold storage, significantly reducing the risk of a large amount of liquid STEEM or SD from being stolen. 

As it stands, if someone were to get the active or owner keys of either of these accounts they could instantly send the liquid assets to another Steem account. We know their active keys are "hot" because both are sending withdraws from the account.

There are a lot of variables to a post being successful. People who have a larger following will have their posts get noticed sooner. The time you post, who is online/reading at that time, how attention grabbing it is, how well written, etc. all play a factor too. Try not to let it discourage you. Building a following takes time, but if you consistently keep posting good content - people will start to notice.

Be careful what you wish for - ask Ethereum, although @dantheman had a great post about this. I am not opposed to hard-forks to recover stolen funds, it just opens a can of worms that without proper vetting, can be disastrous. If I read this post correctly, there is still a shoe to drop on the ETC/ETH problem at Coinbase:

https://steemit.com/steem/@dantheman/bitfinex-blockchain-hacks-and-replay-attacks-oh-my-all-things-that-steem-s-technology-is-designed-to-prevent

I believe the system bitfinex was using was put in place because of government regulations they had to meet to be a legal exchange.  They couldn't keep the coins in cold storage and use ledgers to move the coins they had to move the coins from account to account to satisfy the regulations.  Same would have probably been true of any other coin on the exchange.

They are as secure as your password/keys are secure. So far, a web exploit was able to compromise the keys of people who were logged in with a master password. That web exploit has been fixed and all lost funds have been promised to be reimbursed. I haven't read if there have been any changes to the way the keys are stored locally after that incident, but I have some faith that it's been made more secure now.