Actually I think he is doing something. He makes members aware of an intrinsic problem of the platform, which is a first important step of thinking about it and finding solutions. I don't think single users are to blame 'morally' to exploit a system if the system allows it. So it is not the point if or
act 'morally' wrong or not.
But in my eyes it is obvious that extensive self-voting, comment voting and other (completely legal!) 'tricks' can be dangerous for Steemit in the long run. If only a few are doing that, the system will handle it, but if more and more users are getting aware, that self-voting (without writing long, elaborated articles or communicating with other members) is the most easy and effective way to make profit here, then more and more people will do exactly that (they have the right to do it actually). The consequences will be less communication between users, low quality articles, frustration of newbies, and of course a low Steem price. So even if extensive self-voting may lead to some short term profit in the long rung it should be counterproductive.
As I don't blame single users like or
(as I said, people will always 'game' an exploitable system - and by the way I also upvote my articles and some comments), I think we should try to improve the system, so that it will be at least more difficult to exploit it.
Actually all recent changes made it more easy to upvote oneself:
- unlimited numbers of articles per day (now some users just put 10 minimalistic posts per day and upvote them with full strength).
- a fourfold stronger voting power of 100 % upvotes which make it very comfortable to make a maximum of profit with only a few votes.
- a linear reward curve + the option to delegate Steem.
Actually all these changes also have their advantages but combined they favor self-voting a lot. Therefore I think we should collect ideas to minimize the effect of extensive self-voting and similar methods. I also haven't found any really good solution so far, but at least some ideas:
- for example one could limit the number of upvotes which one can give any other (and also the own) account within a certain time frame. So that one would be forced to spread ones votes (I know, with many socket puppets self-voting would be still possible, but not such easy anymore).
- the same could be valid per IP address. A limited number of upvotes to any account with the same IP address like the own one ...
(These ideas may be inappropriate - I hope you will find much better ones! :) )
Maybe 's article was not completely altruistic, but in my opinion he pointed out a real problem about which we should ponder to find suitable solutions.
RE: Meet Steem's #1 Author!