Actually you have, perhaps unintentionally, pinpointed the problem.

The problem with the monetary system and the market. These are "moral-less" or amoral - they function as they are intended to, there is no need for "good" and "bad". As you correctly note, if the rules of the market are called "moral rules" (which I don't, but let's pretend for the sake of the argument), then it is impossible to go against the "moral rules"

So no. The main message that many people are trying to reformulate in various shapes: a (market + monetary system) is necessary but not sufficient to sustain a prosperous society. You need an additional "anchor point".

This is for instance a thing both Zizek and Peterson agree upon when discussing religion. Human societies need some kind of external "anchor point" to be stable over a longer period. External in the sense of "in addition to a free market and a monetary system"

Now that external anchor point, referential, commonly agreed "transcendental authority" has traditionally been the religion but it needs not be. For instance in France it is now "La République". "la République" does not literally mean "the republic"; it is, for the French "body politic", a transcendental abstraction - it means "the essence of what holds us together, a shared set of values"

This is what U.W Chohan observes in his paper: a community like "Steemit" is unstable and unsustainable and "eats itself out" if there is no external, transcendental authority to which the members of the community all bow and refer to. If there is no set of rules, values, principles that the members agree to honor and enforce.

In that environment, you can still be self interested. And you can still do whatever you want. But if by doing something you want to do you happen to breach the commonly agreed rules, values, principles of the community, then its members should try to punish you or even bane you.

The very existence of the community depends on that.