Let's say any whale has a $300 vote and they use it on another user they like (this happens all over this site), if the total post is worth $315, should the author be entitled to the rewards even though only person is supporting the work to the extent they are?
I argue that such votes should be validated. If @haejin had $300 and only had small minnow votes, then nobody would argue with that, and someone like Bernie would be in the wrong. In fact, some of the tactics that Bernie uses I don't really care for, but the system allows for that so it happens. Hell, some of the posts where Bernie complains are overpriced and clearly don't deserve the rewards they get. Vote verification works both ways. They can also help limit lone downvotes (like the one used on you, right now). That way things are more community based and it will be harder to lone whales to get in these pointless large fights.
That makes no sense, because @haejin earns rewards greater than the amount lost by flagging. Why would he drain the rewards pool in order to enlarge his share of the reward pool? By downvoting @haejin, he wastes voting power. Such an action is unprofitable.