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. The implication in your statement was not that other values exist, and particularly not that far greater values exist, than money. Society is far more valuable to you than the money you get from it - which would be worthless if society didn't value it at all. Society as a pool of individuals creates all the value that money has.

"However, when it comes to your analogy about people who assault the homeless, there is a simple way of dealing with those kinds of people. It's the same way you deal with someone who tries to mug you."

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

"I'll repeat the same answer as before..."

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.

"So if you are a whale and you do a quality post, and you don't self vote it; you're not inhibiting inflation, you're merely not rewarding yourself. Someone else will get those rewards."

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.

"I think you have a misperception that your vote causes inflation."

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.

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.

"Does my assertion self-voting does not create inflation change your position on this?"

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.

"... mine people for creative content by exploiting human psychology..."

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.