it's kind of frowned upon in my eyes.
I just don't understand what the "moral theory" is supposed to be here.
Why would you "frown upon" a large self-vote?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
it's kind of frowned upon in my eyes.
I just don't understand what the "moral theory" is supposed to be here.
Why would you "frown upon" a large self-vote?
It could be used better than already voting on your posts that may get $50-100 per post? Look at @theycallmedan, if he'd self-vote it would feel a bit strange cause he doesn't need it, at the same time if he posted a meme or a photo with a couple words and self-voted it where his 20-40$ vote was 90% of the rewards it would be a disservice to everyone else to not downvote it a bit, no?
Disagreeing on how much reward any specific post "deserves" seems strange.
For example, if a street-musician gets a $100 tip, and they seem to be making less effort than the other street-musicians,
Does that alone give me the right to scoop that tip out of their hat and redistribute that money to the other street-musicians?
NO.
That money is not mine, and I have no right to say that street-musician doesn't "deserve" that large tip.
Also, if the street-musician put their own $100 bill into their own hat, that still wouldn't give me the right to take it out of their hat and redistribute it to the other street-musicians.
I know people like to say "it dilutes the reward pool".
But the same exact argument applies to real-life-CASH-MONEY-DOLLARS as well.
Whenever someone spends a large amount of money, they are reducing the value of your money.
If everyone stops spending, your savings actually increase in "purchasing power".
Why are you assuming a tip is the same as allocation of the reward pool?
You purchase "reward pool" shares by staking your HIVE.
This translates into your "vote power".
It's basically a dividend.
You can choose to share this dividend with random performers who compete for your upvote.
Or, you can choose to upvote yourself.