I have to agree with @snowflake here, but that doesn't mean you're wrong @stellabelle. You have built a brand out of your way of doing things, and your integrity is part of that. @snowflake have their integrity too but it's not social. It reminds me of the way that George Soros has talked about his capitalist ventures being completely amoral to him. He does what he considers moral work separately. Many in the business world operate in this manner.

You're still taking about ROI and hedging your future on developing your character. That's smart and genuine, but it's still about the same stuff. It's just doesn't always have as high return for many other people.

I don't disagree with you, I'm closer to your way of thinking @stellabelle, but the core message from @snowflake is important because in a game theory world the incentives have to match up. And they don't. The messed up thing about incentives is that you can just "feel" them in the responses to actions you take, you don't even have to understand them or do an analysis like @snowflake did, to be affected by them.

In summary I'd say why not both! When the incentives are better balanced it allows us to have the freedom to choose to branch out and explore how to squeeze the most of things by finding new ways of voting, and by making that difference small enough with more cooperative voting that it has a net positive effect all round. Or something 😅 I'm just some guy with an opinion.