"I respond to what you write, not what you think while you write it. I can't know that. Your statement mentioned only one benefit, and that's what I responded to."

I said: "This benefit is not a benefit if they cannot upvote their posts as the former GUI had a tick box for."

When I said "this benefit," it was meant to address that specific one. It's the one that I think most people factor in and give the most credence to before they move to purchase steem.

"So, punish them for committing crimes? A stick, in other words. That's my point. Thanks for making it!"

So the next time a LEO pulls you over for speeding, I'm sure you won't mind a moderate caning then? Sounds perfectly legit. My example is self-defense, whilst your example is an assault. Cops in a big city might be able to get away with doing something like that because homeless people are likely not able to afford to defend themselves. But I'll tell you what, if the cop peers at the homeless man's shoes and sees a pair of Bruno Magli's, he'll put down his batton and be like: "Sir, Sir, you cannot sleep here." If he gets some static, he'll arrest the guy, just as he should have done with the homeless man if he wasn't abusing his power.

"Which adds little to the conversation. Try to address the specific statements I make, which was what I was pointing out you're not doing. Repeating a faint nod to 'other values' doesn't begin to address what I wrote, even though it does acknowledge that there are other values.

What is it that makes social media the most profitable business model in the world? That value isn't financial emuneration, because the most successful social media platforms don't pay their users, something that should make Steem even more attractive as a social media platform, because peope like money. It's those pesky 'other values'. Even though they can get money on Steem for their posts, they don't stay here much, but stick to those other platforms that don't pay them money.

Clearly, those other values are worth more to them than the money they could make here."

Let's try this, just focus on the highlighted part to see another value that I think Steem has, the dinosaur social media has this same value. However, they have it to a lesser degree, because most of them haven't casinoized themselves yet.

I'll repeat the same answer as before: Steem has other value, and it's derived by its ability to mine people for creative content by exploiting human psychology as clearly indicated in the whitepaper. All stakeholders are benefiting from this. I'm not sure that's any more or less moral than those stakeholders who self-vote shit posts after they've realized what steem is doing and one's actual chances of receiving something of equal value in exchange for the time and energy invested.

"Exactly. By allowing content creators to gain the rewards from their posts by not self voting, the whale allows the value of the content to push the price of Steem upwards, making the tokens they have worth more. That's exactly what I advocate, and exactly how self voting pushes the price of the token down. It's playing keep away with content creators with the value they create. Users don't like this, and go away. That shrinks the market for Steem, causing less bids for it on the market that does exist, and that causes supply/demand to lower the price of the token.

I am glad you grasp this principle."

What you fail to acknowledge above is that many steemians are stakeholders and content creators too. So, if a generous content curator goes around and curates good content, then when they produce good content themselves that they are proud of and think is quality, then why shouldn't they curate themselves?

"That's not what I was referring to at all. You said the only people that don't self vote have no self esteem or confidence their content had value. I said that's bullshit, and it is, because I don't self vote and I know my content is valuable. Neither do I lack nominal self esteem."

I said: "Self-voting is not "evil" I've seen self-voters who create high-quality content. If they have any sense of self-esteem and pride in their content then they will vote themselves."

Ehh, you kind of inverted what I said and personalized it. Maybe I could have chosen my words better to have prevented such a situation. I could have said that when I see someone do a high-quality post and then reward it with their stake that, it indicates to me that-that person has not only a sense of self-esteem but also takes pride in the content they produce.

"You keep going on about inflation in response to my comments. This implies that inflation is the only mechanism that reduces the value of Steem, which is completely false. This failure to grasp that demand falling causes price to fall is preventing you from grasping that I am not talking about inflation, except as the source of the rewards pool - which I haven't addressed.

Inflation has nothing to do with these issues, and I think you're simply ignoring that. Again, ignoring facts doesn't make them go away. It just makes it extremely unlikely you can cope with them rationally.

You do you though."

There is probably a myriad of reasons that steem loses value. I think when stakeholders are downvoted, it can sometimes sour them to the platform, and when they sell, this creates downward pressure on the value of the token. Additionally, there is a disillusionment factor. For example, when people learn that some hang their reasoning on downvotes because proof of brain, which simply does not exist, that causes a loss of faith in the crypto. One more disillusioning factor is the blockchain casino gulag, which I mentioned in my other post. These are some major reasons in my mind as to why steem loses value to me. The prices are very low right now, and I have money to spare, but there is a certain poison about this newsteem atmosphere, one which prevents me from investing that money.

"Inflation is not the mechanism in question. It's destruction of demand. So, no, your assertion has no bearing on the matter.

Without the crabs, Steem will starve, because those crabs are the only source of crab. Inflation has nothing to do with it. Crabs staying in the bucket does. Payouts are a big reason for crabs to get in the bucket, but using twisted psychological tricks doesn't keep them in there.

Without the content, that's all Steem is."

The bucket combined with the other crabs is the twisted psychological trick. Also, the whitepaper's use of the crabs in a bucket metaphor is not only horrible, but it is also very telling, the same goes for the casino metaphor. You do realize that gambling addicts end up losing everything in the end--and that crabs are boiled alive and eaten. It's the overlords that prosper, the casino owners, the large stakeholders, the ninja miners if you will. Lucky for me I have ulterior motives for being here, I'm using the gamification to tap into my ability to engage in content creation. My guess is nobody else will make a real killing on steem until there's another untethered BTC pump and dump. It will likely happen again, and when it does, the smart people are going to dump hard and fast, leaving new suckers to hold the bag. "Fool me once, shame on you."

"Well, that content has value to folks, and that is because it benefits them. That makes it worth something to expend to get. None of that is exploitative, so casting it as primarily some twisted psychological trick is apparently simply a preface for justifying more twisted psychological tricks. This isn't necessary unless you're advocating using twisted psychological tricks, which I don't. Make a valuable product that is profitable. Steem is that product for Stinc, and since it's an investment vehicle, it's value can grow, which is what we want it to do as stakeholders.

That's really simple, and that makes it functionally robust."

Of course, the content has value, just as crab meat has value to the person eating it, and gamblers have value to the house who always wins in the end. However, most of the crabs won't get out of the bucket, and most of the gambling addicts will have their lives ruined. Some people go to the casino recreationally with 50 bucks and buy pennies, spend a few hours and go home with more, or empty-handed. That's a safe play. I came to this casino staked by the house, and I'm up big time in comparison. However, if I was here for the money and did a cost-benefit analysis, I'd conclude that it's an unprofitable time sink and that I was right not to invest those extra funds. On the plus side, I got good at the penny slots (content creation), and that's a skill that might come in handy on a more practical level someday.