Although it's considered a faux pas to self-upvote by some, at the best it's an aspiration for a more voluntary/gift-based economy (as opposed to exchange/barter), at the worst it's a needless idealism that causes unnecessary strife in the STEEM community.
Would you be the designated cook for a family gathering, do all the work, and then not eat any of the food yourself?
There are many people that come to STEEM primarily as investors. They don't really care much about blogging. Is 100% self-voting tasteless? In my opinion, yes, it's abhorrent. What about 90%? 75, 50, 25%?
This is subjective moralization of a system that, at its core, is intended to allow as close to maximum freedom when it comes to using one's own stake as possible. Guilting people for self-voting helps nothing. It's also quite useful to upvote comments in order to draw them towards the top of a feed.
If this behavior is agreed to be dysfunctional, then something huge needs to change about how the STEEM blockchain functions in order to de-incentivize self-voting. (Even then, people will just use alt accounts and find other ways to achieve the same end - maximum profit.)
Two basic ways to change the Steemit economy: 1) change the blockchain itself. 2) change the mentality/behavior of the users of the blockchain. The former is quite easy though requiring enough consensus. The latter is extraordinarily difficult, though capable of being affected by a single well- (or ill-) intentioned person.
Although it's considered a faux pas to self-upvote by some, at the best it's an aspiration for a more voluntary/gift-based economy (as opposed to exchange/barter), at the worst it's a needless idealism that causes unnecessary strife in the STEEM community.
Would you be the designated cook for a family gathering, do all the work, and then not eat any of the food yourself?
There are many people that come to STEEM primarily as investors. They don't really care much about blogging. Is 100% self-voting tasteless? In my opinion, yes, it's abhorrent. What about 90%? 75, 50, 25%?
This is subjective moralization of a system that, at its core, is intended to allow as close to maximum freedom when it comes to using one's own stake as possible. Guilting people for self-voting helps nothing. It's also quite useful to upvote comments in order to draw them towards the top of a feed.
If this behavior is agreed to be dysfunctional, then something huge needs to change about how the STEEM blockchain functions in order to de-incentivize self-voting. (Even then, people will just use alt accounts and find other ways to achieve the same end - maximum profit.)
Two basic ways to change the Steemit economy: 1) change the blockchain itself. 2) change the mentality/behavior of the users of the blockchain. The former is quite easy though requiring enough consensus. The latter is extraordinarily difficult, though capable of being affected by a single well- (or ill-) intentioned person.
I do agree, although there are some folks I know need help, so I'll upvote them anyway. Mostly, I don't upvote them as upvote themselves.