So, if you have 100,000 steem and you encourage new people to join and help steem hit $100, you just made $99,400,000.
That's a really good point that I hadn't considered in the whole incentives structure debate. The question is how does that balance with my obvious self-interest to up-vote myself when I respond to your post? Shouldn't I be able to reward myself if I own enough Steem? It's a really weird dilemma to try to work through.
you can reward yourself. Everyone can. In a previous hard fork there self upvotes weren't allowed by the steem blockchain. But there is an easy work around... create a new account and upvote that one instead, same shit...
My arguement isn't meant to stop people from upvoting themselves, feel free to do it, if you bought steem you've invested and self upvoting is a way to recoup money on your investment. I'm just saying you will make a shit tonne more money if you upvote other people instead.
A rising tide lifts all ships. We are all on the same ocean, so you can either use your upvote try build a dam and lift your own boat, or contribute to steem, play the game give everything away and watch your invest grow....
Now here's the fun part. The example you quoted, was with steem at $100... that's easy, year or two steem will be at $100 (provided enough new people keep coming in and qualtiy content also increases). Now think about 5 years from now. steem at $1,000... suddenly, that $10,000,000 in steem (100,000 SP) is worth $100,000,000... All because you weren't selfish. because there are 100 million steemit users, because SMTs are here...
and your 4,293.181 is worth $4,293,181 that is why you shouldn't be selfish...