Having people gaming that system not only cause sell pressure, but have other potential side effects as well.
Selling endorsements (upvotes) is a primary use-case for steem. Advertising is the primary source of funding for facebook, youtube, and google.
Punishing people for boosting their visibility is 100% counter-productive!!!
Take the whale that has been self-voting for over a year with his 1.4M SP. He was stopped by a collective effort. At one point, he was raking in 2% of the daily rewards. People need to be able to disagree with rewards.
What moral theory are you defending??
If someone wants to buy 1.4 million steem and power it up, WE NEED TO KISS THAT INVESTOR'S ROTTEN STINKY FEET!!
WE NEED MARKET-CAP. And you don't boost market-cap by CHASING AWAY INVESTORS WILLING TO BUY 1.4 MILLION STEEM AND LOCK IT AWAY (power it up)!!!
That investment does not increase price pressure on Steem unless it somehow encourages growth of the market. Self voting provides zero incentive for new users to enter the market. All it does do is transform ninjamined stake into golden parachutes.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
We need to get rid of all bots and invite investees
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Why though. Why do you think we need to get rid of all bots?
I still haven't heard any sort of coherent moral or economic theory on this proposal.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Not don't create wealth and it robs the system
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Except Steem is the only place where advertising fees include ROI. You see why it's being exploited badly before HF21? This is the only place on Earth where you can drop some money, bots promise you 20% return on STEEM within 7 days.
Hence why no good content creators really wanted to use them because all the shitposts being churned out at a rapid rate.
What are we defending? The dude was top #1 "author" selling. Add 30 more whales to that list. What do you have? A token with not enough demand. Too many people don't want to be here because all they see is whales wanking themselves. They are selling faster than people can generate value.
That whale didn't build value. He didn't sponsor projects. He didn't delegate to shit. He was here to do "proof of click" mining to cash out the value YOU build from your sorry content.
In fact, I am willing to bet that he wanted to keep things that way so he can have his perpetual money printing machine for his own projects away from Steem while you marvel him as lord of the blockchain.
Steem needs real investors, not profiteers. The current ecosystem can't sustain pure profiteers such as selfish whales or content agnostic "promotional services". Ask @valued-customer all about it.
There are other whales sponsoring communities and projects, those are the investors you need. Not some guy trying to cash out quicker than others are building.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I was about to substantively quote your comment and point out how much I agree, and then I saw the ping LOL. Apparently I am not alone in grasping how demand is created by markets.
I.. I feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Yes I believe in a hundred% of what you are saying
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
And FYI, Steemit is just a front end.
It's the Steem Blockchain. Steem =/= Steemit
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit