Your argument sounds a lot like 'really people do not benefit from this, but I do, in part because they do not benefit from it'
That's some community, civic spirit you got going on there. I can see how you are going to win this campaign.
(Image not shown due to low ratings)
Images were hidden due to low ratings.
Then the entire platform is flimsy (which I don't believe is true). If you want to combat sybil, you will have to invent a whole new technology: Cryptographically verifiable unique identity
I'm not saying this is impossible. But, like I said, it's a whole new technology. Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if someone wrote a proof to demonstrate one way or the other.
Sorta like the halting problem. It's mathematically proven that the halting problem cannot be solved. But you can set bounds to side-step the proof. So even if unique identity cannot be supported by a proof, there might be reasonable bounds.
Interesting idea and good insight. It's something I've been interested in for a while, trustless identity.
Which position is 100% self-consistent? Let's take several iterations:
Iteration #1
Iteration #2
Iteration #3
I believe you are justified in using your stake to oppose self-voting. But I also think it fails the self-consistency test.
Wow.
"This is clearly incorrect, because every holder of Steem is paying this interest rate, at a rate of 9.3% or so per year, through the dilution of their assets."
Quote from your answer... If we are all paying our share of the interest, can't we use the stake we are paying for as we want? Why do you get to determine who I vote for with the stake you just said I pay for with my dilution?
It's fine. Not worried about it. Use your stake however you like. I even voted for it.