I think my logic is sound. People who post to fund their vacations share their stories. They don't come and say: "I want to go to X, please give me the money". They take the money but give us their stories in return.
Similarly, we don't see short posts like "I need a new car, please upvote" gaining any support. If they did get support we would think something is really wrong with Steem.
Imagine this: a Bittrex (or Poloniex) shareholder makes a short post similar to @jonnybitcoin's to get funds for Bittrex/Poloniex campaign on Facebook. And he gets upvotes from whales who we know for sure are significant Bittrex/Poloniex shareholders. Is it OK? Wouldn't you think there is a clear conflict of interest taking place.
Or imagine this: I create a BitShares worker proposal to fund Steem banner campaign on Facebook. And the proposal goes through becasue it gets support from BitShares whales who are also Steem shareholders. What does @jonnybitcoin do when he realizes what's going on?
- A: he does nothing, he just accepts the fact as part of BitShares protocol
- B: he raises the issue on BitShares forum and argues it's an abuse and tries to convince people to vote against the proposal
EDIT: I guess the moral from this incident is this: if @jonnybitcoin had heeded to my pleas to add a disclaimer about funds originating from Steem, he would have gotten significantly more funds (as he would not have gotten the downvotes - at least not from me). Both communities would benefit.
As it is now, he got less funds and there will be no publicity for Steem. Both communities lose out as a result.
The example you use is very improbable. Bitshares whales would be unlikely to fund steem ads on fb.
But as shown steem whales are happy to fund bitshares ads because alot of those steem whales are also BTS whales. The difference I think is because steem rewards would have gone to another post if not mine. Where as in bitshares rewards only go to those actively chosen.