I think you are misinterpreting the situation and blowing it out of proportion. There is nothing in the least bit treasonous about voting on a post that could help the whale grow and produce more meaningful rewards for the underappreciated authors that are the project's focus. Every bit of funding received is turned into SP to increase the power of @robinhoodwhale's votes. There is no conspiracy here. The whale has voted on dozens of posts and has an excellent track record, which anyone is more than welcome to audit.
https://steemit.com/robinhoodwhale/@laonie/robinhoodwhale-28-08-2016
Look at all those authors! Go vote on some of them!
Yes there is. The mission is not just "grow" the @robinhoodwhale power (at least not the publicly stated mission). The mission was to collect "small fish" SBD and SP donations and with those donations create a whale that would help the small fish.
So upvoting a "conected fish" is wasting minnow's voting power. It is not that the voting power is endless, if the upvote goes to a conected account then it is less power for the small fish posts. Just as simple as that.
Right now the vote is on pace to add 0.079 SP to the contributions received from a wide range of users, from whales, to jellyfish such as myself, and yes to some minnows as well... that will likely grow, in fact.
But hey, if you are really that dissatisfied, and you want to divest from @robinhoodwhale, I will personally reimburse you the full amount of your contribution. That is, if you have helped fund @robinhoodwhale....
Once again, the @robinhoodwhale was meant to help non conected "small fish" and it was not proposed as a "power" game where the @robinhoodwhale would do the "upvoting the sure shots" (the whales choice) posts, but just to collect SP and SMD from small fish to upvote good quality posts from....small fish (aka NON well conected ones).
And our intention is to make sure (in this case) that the @robinhoodwhale doesn't deviate from the publicly proposed policy, as it is the case when they are upvoting @anahilaraski. And no "stunt" like "hey if you don't like it, shut up and here some money" will work, because there is nothing wrong on publicly claiming for a publicly stated policy to be implemented as proposed. Or what is wrong about that?