This was one of the problems with completely linear rewards. I would say that we should probably discuss it as a coding issue, but we already tried that...and Steemit, Inc. simply insisted that it wouldn't be a problem.
Once again, they thought they knew best. And once again, we are seeing the predicted consequences. I'm afraid any "community discussions" will simply fall on the same deaf ears.
Actually in my opinion the fourfold impact of 100 % upvotes is the biggest problem (while I personally appreciate the linear reward curve) as it makes it so easy just to write ten minimalistic articles per day and upvote them with full strength. You can observe that for example here:
https://steemit.com/@sandrino
I wonder why the option to upvote oneself exists at all? I know that preventing it wouldn't solve all problems because there is still the possibility of using many mutually upvoting accounts, but at least it makes it a little bit more difficult. Concerning the multiaccount problem one could think about preventing accounts with the same IP to upvote each other ...
I actually wrote an article about the problem of self-voting since HF 19 and hoped to initiate some discussions ...
I have bitten my tongue on this issue because honestly, I have been kind of duped myself. It's only human nature to give the most attention to the posts that have earned the most value and I have been conditioned around here pre HF19 to understand that value has been earned for a reason.
So, the past few weeks, when the same high value authors were spamming my feed, I was taking notice.
No worries now, because I'm adapting my browsing habits. Maybe others are as well?
I mean, just remove the upvote button on posts that belong to whatever account posted them, right?
EDIT: Of course after posting this do I realize that having multiple accounts can circumvent that.
The fact that the "upvote post" checkbox still being available in the "Submit A Story" page kind of implies that it's okay to do, which I've gone back and forth with, frankly. I'll have an internal moral dilemma with it and stop doing it, then I'll see tons of people doing it, so herd mentality kicks in and I'll start it up again. I don't think it matters much for accounts like mine that only have $1 upvotes at 100% voting power and on the slider. But once you get to where you can generate more than, say, $5 in a single vote... then things just start feeling questionable.
Indeed, I think that the behaviour is always questionable. But I agree with you: if the effect is quite small, you would probably say "well, it doesn't bother anybody" but if it's large, many people see abuse. It is kind of moral dilemma wheter you should be able to push youself on starting here or if just nobody should have (or use) this option.
If the option would be removed, maybe the voting power is set free to support other users?
I can agree with that, its there so, people use it. I think its being taken advantage too much though.
I get how exponential rewards would discourage a big hitter from sending half his SP into a sock puppet account, then have the two accounts upvote each other; but I don't understand how it would stop him from opening a sock puppet account with nothing in it, then upvoting from his whale account?