I don’t think we should make it a fact, or at least try to imply, that multiple accounts is the default future if no self-voting. That’s saying that law offenders are the default stance. Multiple accounts is something reserved for the internet pro, something usually promoted also by the internet pro - those who always need to promote themselves and like/RT/upvote themselves in order to give themselves more traction.
There aren’t many places in life where it’s possible to (financially) reward one’s own efforts and making that a de facto right seems just... wrong. Or at least feels wrong.
Jane and Joe Average usually only have multiple accounts because for some reason they got locked out of their email address and inevitably also lost their account password. Early adopters and internet pros still aren’t the median demographic.
The argument that those curating should earn more is actually funny as well. Why should somebody liking something earn the same as the creator? To me it seems smarter to penalise those who do not participate to the wealth distribution.
As far as I’m aware earning (proof of brain) is the unique marketing element and as such we should make that new economy happen. That should focus on distribution of rewards, not on “do I get high enough a return” from rewarding. We’re trying to rewrite the uniqueness here.
Let’s not, let’s instead focus on how we can improve quality and reward that. Not by one self.
Remember that the better the wealth distribution works, and thus possible social vertical mobility, the more valuable the stakes held will become. That’s ultimately the reward for investors. Investors, at least those we want and need, should have a long term focus. 5-8 Years before return.