I made this comment on another post and it probably didn't get your attention. So I'm posting it again and this time with a self-vote for visibility.
@Haejin and @ranchorelaxo, Please consider sharing one or two vote a day to support the growth of Steem (indirectly it's price)
I'm 100% with you on this.
Should you reduce your self-voting by one or two votes a day and reward instead some of what you think could have the greatest impact, we would all win.
Agreed.
But here is a question. What about people who are doing ridiculous self-upvotes and/or circle-jerks that doesn't happen to be @haejin or @ranchorelaxo ? What about them?
I think the only real solution is a protocol level change. We can already calculate how much % of each person's VP has gone to each account. So what if we code the blockchain to burn the additional rewards generated when 1 account uses more than X % of all votes on a single account.
Nobody's voting patterns are not going to be affected. The posts would also gain high visibility. When rewards are burnt the STEEM inflation goes down and everybody benefits without affecting any of the ongoing behavior. Eventually voters will decide if they want to upvote authors purely for visibility instead of giving them rewards and getting curation or whether they want to spread their votes among few people.
This method requires additional work from the devs. But it's fair for everybody. You are taking actions against @haejin because he is visible. Dolphines may manage to do the same without being noticed much. You can only keep an eye on few whales. Whales do have the highest impact. But if they are th only ones getting fingers pointed at, you are doing blockchain wrong. In blockchain Code is law as code is unbiased and affects all universally in the same manner; objectively.
So have a chat with the witnesses and the devs. Put a simple cap and everybody can go back to minding their own businesses and engage in positive actions :-)
The idea of adding a voting limit is good but won't stop the circle jerks because you just have to create more accounts and divide the votes between them to counter it.
And btw. there are also many more problems on Steem, multi account abusers, copy/paste upvote farmer and so on and the problem with them is that they are harder to spot than for example haejin and his one man upvote army/personal investor (who for example wouldn't do any impact to Steem when leaving just because well all he does is upvoting haejin)
The problem is that Steem (at the current state) needs a lot of active regulation to stop abuse because it has no real passive mechanism to counter them well atm it has many mechanisms which are benefiting abusers ...
Great question man. About time people opened their eyes as well eh?