It's quite a heated discussion - the arguments against self voting are pretty obvious. On the other hand, people who have invested a lot of their personal money into Steemit feel it is their right to self-vote to maximise their return on investment.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Honestly it is fiscal responsibility. However, it is bad for Steemit. Folks who self vote are either trapped by their SP being linked to their VP, or don't understand that using votes to encourage others for the content you like, encourages them to reciprocate. For accounts that don't hold significant SP, this is their most profitable option, and the basis of social interaction on Steemit.
Were VP weighted by reputation, or not weighted, then curation wouldn't be mined for financial gain, and investors in Steem would simply be inuring capital gains from appreciation in the price of Steem.
The price of BTC three years ago was similar to Steem's price today. Recently BTC was $3000. If Steem was just 1% of that amount present investors would see a gain of 20000%. This is only a fraction of Steem's upside potential, as BTC shows - and BTC is just a store of value, not driven by Steemit.
As I've posted elsewhere, Steemit has far higher purposes potential than simply as a way to stay in touch with friends and family, or competing for 'likes'. Should Steemit even approach meeting some of those purposes, the price of Steem will leave BTC in the dust.
This is why it is those who might most profit from Steemit being forked to prevent financial manipulation of curation, whales, that should most oppose that financial manipulation, because that gaming of curation for profit debases Steemit, and threatens those incredible returns.