@therealwolf 's created platform smartsteem scammed my post this morning (mothersday) that was supposed to be for an Abused Childrens Charity.  Dude literally stole from abused children that don't have mothers ... on mothersday.  

https://steemit.com/steemit/@prometheusrisen/beware-of-smartsteem-scam

I guess I have different considerations due to my account's stated mission, you're right, it would be nice to upvote those who have upvoted me the most in kind to repay them, but I think they themselves would prefer if I were to distribute it further outwards in whatever ways possible. As a whole system trickle down does not work, but there are definitely some people who could give less of a fuck about absolute maximization on steemit and I think without them the platform would be deader than dead.

Hello Meno! your ideas seem really accurate to me. I believe that we must act in accordance with our principles and values, and not according to what we want to obtain in return.

I think that doing what I like without having expectations about anyone, helps me to be in peace with myself and the others.

I don't see this is a gift economy @meno @luzcypher. I think some can choose to create that ideology within themselves based on what's enabled here, but here is why I don't see it that way.

* When you upvote me, you're not giving me <em>your</em> money. Yes, you're giving me your acknowledgement or allegiance. But you're giving by proxy of an algorithm with no personality. Coins are produced by the blockchain every day like money is printed by the feds everyday. In this way it's more like a government-granting system where as agents we choose how to distribute the grants provided by the government.

> <strong>No Micropayments, Tips Optional</strong> — Steem bypasses micro-payments completely because when a user up-votes a post it is the community that pays the bill. — Whitepaper

In the same way, when the government prints money, that value is essentially transferred to community effort. That's why inflating fiat makes people uncomfortable, as it gives them more work and obligates them to think more to sustain what they already have. So essentially, Steem inspires proof-of-work, proof-of-brain, by inflating.

* Voting is a way of determining who should be paid, how much, but also what's curated. Self-voting is essentially curating your own content, rather than rewarding it — It just so happens that rewards and voting aren't mutually exclusive, like flags and down-voting.

I've seen Ned and several witnesses use the actual phrasing "curating my own comments/content." The number one associated reason I noticed, was for archiving a flow of conversation. If we see it as suspicious activity, we will judge it that way. If we see it as it is created, neutrally, it opens doors to more uses (e.g. Steepshot rewards IMPRESSIONS void of upvotes, for instance.)

<em>I've been spending time over at the git hustling around the code trying to figure out a way these things can be separated on a condenser interface without dividing them on other interfaces (like steepshot), so that users of blogging interfaces can flag content without down-voting it, and curate ourselves without rewarding if they desire. My effort is mostly for the purpose of seeing if spam filtering is possible without wasting votes. But if successful, the byproduct would also be the possibility of self-curating without self-rewarding.</em>

> Furthemore, Steem pays people to figure out who should be paid. — Whitepaper

<h5>Self-esteem</h5>

I was listening to NED talk in a Youtube video where he said Steem was named after ESTEEM, specifically self-esteem.

Steem blockchain behavior would prove who has self-esteem.

I think this is super fascinating, because it has.

> I think it is important to demonstrate not only gratefulness but selflessness as well.  — luzcypher

Personally, I'm of the school of thought that identifies selflessness as unhealthy; in tow with most abuse recovery psychology. As a recovered victim of variety of abuse, I wouldn't say I admit I'm triggered by the word selfless. It denotes, sacrificial-lambhood, masochism, and Stockholm Syndrome.

An interesting discussion with one of my business mentors as the SBA comes to mind right now, in that many times we don't recognize that our self-victimization is not admirable.

<h3>I ask, If I were to cut myself for your love and attention, is that admirable?</h3> 

We extrapolate that to an extreme to put our intentions under a microscope. Self-cutting for attention is a form of non-suicidal self-injury based in histrionic personality disorder. Granted, I realize that if the strategy is to attract more people to you then standing on a ledge will garner much attention- but what kind of attention and from what kind of people?

My answer is this, "Christ attracts sinners."

My ethic is to embody gratitude, whilst expressing <strong>generosity</strong> in balance to my generosity toward myself. Some observe self-care and label it "greed" but I think nobody ever really knows another persons motivation or intention — we only presume based on our trust of a person and our affinity with them.

Further, I believe those with healthy esteem toward themselves reward themselves no matter how they visualize what's happening. Our rewards are aligned with our values. In some cases, it may be rewarding just to love someone else. Or it may be self-rewarding to have garnered the trust of others.  It may be self-rewarding to be part of a community. Ad infinitum.

<strong>In our case @meno, we have both agreed that we experience intrinsic reward from giving. It feels good.</strong> That doesn't mean it feel bad to get or to take. I get a stronger self-reward from giving surprises for instance. Where you may experience a stronger self-reward by being a steady rock of support.

>  I don't want anyone to get the idea that I'm gaming the system to benefit me personally in a direct way. — luzcypher

This is a worthwhile strategy to secure trust, but I personally like to set the example that win/win situations are superior to win/lose situations. I also think that being direct about ones benefit is superior to concealing an indirect benefit.

I'm not suggesting in ANY way that luzcy is being deceptive. However, on the other end- I don't believe deception to be inherently wrong either in all cases.

Steem is built for self-love. Consider the transparency of the ledger and the fact that even delegated SP returns curation to the delegate. While I'm deeply grateful to be empowered by those who delegate to me, I also realize I'm voting by proxy. I receive the value in the form of the gratitude while the curation rewards go right back to the person who empowered me. All I benefit from delegated SP I hold is the gratitude some express when I upvote them. There is no guarantee they will follow me as a result or support me because I supported them. And even if they do, they're often supporting me with grant money.

> abuse their power by upvoting themselves — luzcypher

This implies an association between self-voting and abuse. 

It's a common paradigm within the community. However, its a belief. 

From a technical standpoint, Condenser employs this feature for the very purpose of it being used. Therefore it is not abuse, or even misuse of the feature. It is the optional correct and good use — according to Steem ethos.

We must remember that Steem protocol is the basis of the ethos within its ecosystem. if we go to the jungle and start leveling trees to build houses, it's our ethos — but we are destroying it. And essentially, as we live in our house in the jungle, we will eventually find a tiger on our doorstep.

I subjectively feel misuse lay in the abusive intention of those using it, when a pattern of behavior suggests exclusive self-voting, or predominant self-voting (over 50%); as I interpret the whitepaper:

> So it is with people. If one tries to do something different, get better grades, improve herself, escape her environment, or dream big dreams, other people will try to drag her back down to share their fate.  — Whitepaper

> Eliminating “abuse” is not possible and shouldn’t be the goal. Even those who are attempting to “abuse” the system are still doing work. Any compensation they get for their successful attempts at abuse or collusion is at least as valuable for the purpose of distributing the currency as the make-work system employed by traditional Bitcoin mining or the collusive mining done via mining pools.  — Whitepaper

Ie. those who abuse the system, are effectively "mining" and sustaining the price of Steem (and everyone benefits from the price of Steem.) That is valid proof of work and proof of brain.

<strong>I can't believe she helped herself to that pie she helped make! How dare she evenly split it between everyone including herself.</strong>

This is what those angry at self-voters sound like to me. ^^^

The discrepancy lay in what each of us define as work and brain and how that differs from what the whitepaper/blockchain hopes to define as work and brain.

The experiment we all voluntarily contracted to participate in defines using the system to benefit oneself as good. It further defines abusing the system to benefit oneself to the loss of others as at least valuable to the system as a whole, which in turn still benefits everyone.

In other words, it has built in justice. Therefore, nobody has to take on the role of justice. In the same way, nobody has to take on the pressure of micropaying.

Tricky huh! lol!

Well, this is not to really disagree flat on with you or Lucy, more like food for thought. The way MY selfish behaviour and luzy sacrifical behavior plays out looks very similar in the end. 

What I care to point out here is that self-voting, no matter how others paradigms have labeled it, is not actually abusive neither as detrimental to the ecosystem as it's presumed. It would be far more detrimental if everyone stopped self-voting than if everyone started to.

I personally value self-esteem, self-sufficiency, self-validation. I don't believe in resting my esteem, wellness, or validation solely on others. I don't feel it's healthy. And I would rather leave Steem Blockchain all together than undermine my mental health by making any exception to those standards or principals. Until the code itself prohibits self-voting and the whitepaper and code is updated to a habitat that exhibits civility, I won't deny myself (ethically or physically) the <strong>option</strong> of self-voting without any negative moral judgement toward myself.

Lastly, I realize your account is longer active and larger than mine. And so is Lucy, and I ADMIRE your account growth. I think that's wonderful. And I admire that you both share what you feel has led to your accounts growing. That too I value. I will always feel grateful for the information you and other helpies share, experiences, mentorship, etc. I hope that one day that I can bring amazing blessings to communities like helpie and others that have taken me under wing — as well as, share what has worked for me.

As far as my expectations go, I expect more trickling up than down. But I also am someone who tries to exemplify that accepting trickle up is safe and also that trickling down is safe — if that makes any sense. I think it would make more sense when I'm a orca or something. Remain hopeful.

Now I need to find some reason to start @snobdoucher.

Wow! I was going to comment, but then got distracted by extremely well-written dissertations in the comments section that brought up many interesting points. Many of those points were extremely well-reasoned, some very valid considerations, but mostly ultimately flawed.  
Which brings me back to your post about Luz’s philosophy.
 As deeply ingrained as ‘taking’ is in our society, gifting is ultimately the best form of altruistic selfishness or as the Dalai Lama would say ‘selfish altruism,’ in that everything we put out does inevitably come back (often 100 fold). It just seems to be the way the universe works, despite our indoctrinated objections.
I find it hard not to fall into the traps you speak of, like @selfishprickuser not commenting on my post after I comment on their’s, nor even giving a response to my comments certainly pushes buttons overtime. 
Does that mean I should cease commenting on their posts? 
Yes, I probably shouldn’t comment on their posts anymore, but not because of lack of reciprocity or some form of parsimoniousness, but more because it’s clear that this person doesn’t wish to establish any form of relationship with me and there are plenty of others that do. After all, time is limited. 
 Although there’s a valid argument that could be made about commenting on other’s posts being important, because even if they don’t reply or comment back themselves, your comment (if it’s a good comment) will get noticed by others and can spark relationships with other people. (Just negated the point with a better reasoning. Lol)

There’s something I learned over the years about giving that must be made clear. 
Like the understanding of yin-yang giving and receiving must be balanced. 
Giving too much too often can cause a dysfunctional disbalance (a disturbance in the force), especially if the person doing the giving is not receptive to receiving. 
Receiving is as vital in the process as giving. 
Think about it. 
If someone wishes to give me a compliment, *“wow! You’re so incredibly talented! That was the best show I’ve ever seen!”* but I deflect or reject the compliment, *“thanks, but nah! I was shit!”* Then I have robbed that person of the joy of giving. In that instance, I have inadvertently become a ‘taker’ under the guise of being a ‘giver’ simply because of a distorted or myopic view of receiving. 

I’m all for a gifting economy. 
In fact, I think it’s an inevitable future for our species, but it won’t work without a deep understanding of balance between giving and receiving.

Yet another thought provoking post. Love it mate!

In its primary inception, Steem is the first cryptocurrency that applies Point of Stake(PoS). PoS means the more you have, the more you get. So, in its primary inception, Steem is a selfish economy. Not a gift / sharing economy.

As there are more and more bloggers, Steemit is moving to a gift / sharing economy. It's more of an initiative from the community collective.