I think there needs to be a push on changing the reward curve that currently incentivices selfish-mining. Now that I'm doing ~1-2% self all along, I might have my SP 50% lower than a purely selfish miner with the same SP today, in maybe a year or two. So in effect, I'll be having less to support others in the future from doing what I do today. Plus the big thing is that it's an open platform and everyone's free to do whatever they want - there's no guarantee of rewards. It's not like getting hired for a job doing X, Y, and, Z.

Why would anyone now give more of their votes away to help grow the network when on the long-term, the reward curve isn't encouraging more investors to spread out the votes other than to themselves? Now that I've not been onto selfish-mining ever since most people are onto it since HF equality was introduced, imagine how much influence has been diluted on my side?

It's almost a crime not to have kept up with the rational move for the long-term game after hf equality has taken place. I was a bit naive thinking most would stay on course of distributing the stakes to grow the network. It's really not clear cut what the best move is @dj123.

Sorry to say, but it's also arguable that it's easy for most new users to complain while providing trivial contributions (to be fair, like 99.99% of us) on the network, which on the whole, any rewards would be a great bonus that shouldn't be taken at face value at current valuations. But all in all, the reward curve could change to make altruism equally profitable so more people will shift away from selfish-mining. Either that or a community where connections are made closer over time so effective altruism can take place.