It’s tough to say; Trending is a problem, I think it’s solvable with creative coding. If the size of an investment doesn’t add to the value of the crypto; Then why are larger stakeholders afforded a bigger vote?

Does the math need to change to accommodate thousands of years of human evolution? Or can we drum out self-interest via operant conditioning? I think the most natural systems are those that account for human behavior. If Steem doesn’t take that into account, in the code, then what are the chances it will thrive as opposed to dying on the vine?

If I buy 1k steem and give myself an upvote at 100% how does that make me any more or less moral than a guy who does the same with 3 million steem? Does the amount of stake a person holds have any merit in and of itself? If not, does the rate-limit voting need to be adjusted, perhaps on a sliding scale based on stake weight?

If self-voting is discouraged after a certain threshold, maybe this should be fixed at the level of the code. Why not find a way for the blockchain to police the blockchain? People can respect that and live in harmony with others. Anything has to be better than pitting people against each other and relying upon the frailty of human subjectivity.