I don't often check my witness votes as far as who is or isn't voting for me (I try to stay as impartial as possible), but the other day I did happen to see your vote removed (as it's a rather large one, it stood out) so I was happy to see this post and explanation. I love that we can respectfully disagree and still get along just fine and continue adding value to STEEM.
Before I get too far along, I want to ask if you'd also remove your support for witnesses like @anyx and @jesta? In my opinion, they have provided more value to this blockchain than most any other witnesses combined. To remove support for them would be to signal that what they are contributing here is not valued. IMO, that hurts all of STEEM. IMO, they provide so much value exactly because they are involved in the entire cryptocurrency ecosystem, not just one thing.
If some authors are receiving support to shill for a project, I'd be very turned off also. I've never done that for any project. One time after I wrote a SmartCash post, I found out about a writing contest which was already going on and submitted my post. I ended up winning and that's the closest thing I can think of to getting rewarded outside of STEEM for a post here. I think those who talk about projects they like should do so because they like the projects, not because they are getting paid to talk about them. I completely agree with your reasoning for not upvoting posts for projects you're not interested in. Definitely use your Steem Power as you see fit.
As to witness voting, I wouldn't say those who are advisors or block producers or advocates for multiple projects or teams are "double dipping." On the contrary, I think being well-rounded and learning from every project in the space helps people have a more complete understanding of what the latest technologies are and what open-source and governance best practicies are being implemented which can benefit other open source projects. For me, this isn't about tribalism or coin maximalism, but about improving human well-being. The things I learn from EOS, eosDAC, STEEM, SmartCash, or any other project I advise or do research on makes me a better cryptocurrency advocate and (IMO) STEEM witness.
Back to my example of @anyx and @jesta, I think the only metric that should matter is whether or not a witness brings value to the STEEM ecosystem compared to others. If someone who works on multiple projects is too busy with those projects to stay engaged enough in STEEM, then their output would decline and not voting for them makes sense. If, on the other hand, they are learning new things and bringing those ideas (these are all open source projects anyway, right?) back to STEEM to improve it, why is that a bad thing?
I'll give a practical example of what I mean. I mentioned in a comment to Tim Cliff about how the EOS community is building a foundation to control the EOS Github repo outside of the control of Block.one. I think that's something we should do also and @smooth replied in agreement. That's just one of many small examples where being engaged and involved in many different blockchain projects helps us all grow and be better at our jobs. For another example, what if SMT Oracles could be improved by including the Ricardian Contracts like EOS is using?
If someone's motivation is selfish or that they "aren't getting paid enough" or some similar reason, then I would agree with your reasoning to remove your vote. If, on the other hand, they want to provide more value to the whole cryptocurrency space to increase human well-being, that's something I support, based on their output of value.
I don't see blockchain projects as tribal "teams." I like this talk by Andreas Antonopolous where he describes a future where money is a form of language expression and competing currencies all live together just fine. I can't imagine any situation where a witness would (or even could) actually make a decision against the best interest of the community they are producing blocks for. We discussed this on the show SirCork is mentioning as well and no compelling example was presented.
You mention the potential for a conflict of interest. Can you give a concrete example? The only one mentioned on the show related to a witness blocking the release of SMTs which we all kind of agreed is ridiculous. Any witness who doesn't do what's best for STEEM will not remain a STEEM witness. The witnesses aren't writing the code (for the most part), they are validating blocks as trustworthy members of the community. Their expertise and experience in many projects creates that reputation. I've been a witness for a year. A top 20 witness for 6 months of that year. I've yet to come across anything evenly remotely concerning regarding insider information or the concerns you're bringing up. It's all open source and everything is visible by everyone on Github, long before a witness decision is made regarding an upgrade or fork.
I'd like to see a real example of "a proposed update that favors one blockchain over the other" because I can't imagine one that would cause me to make a poor decision, and I don't think I'm being naïve. I'm always going to work as hard as I can to support the communities that are trusting in me. What incentive would I have to invalidate that trust? On the contrary, by being involved in both projects (and even many projects), I can bring the best of all worlds together. eosDAC, as an example, is learning about decentralization from things SmartCash is doing (which I learned about via a tipping bot here on Steemit). We are all connected, building a new financial and governance reality. If we start creating walled gardens with "us vs. them" mentalities, we'll stunt progress and take further steps backwards.
@donkeypong, I respect you and the many communities you support here. I say all this not to persuade you to change your mind, but to clarify my perspective for others who are still undecided. As I mentioned two months ago when joining eosDAC, I think decentralization and DACs are the future, and I want to help build that future. I think it will impact and improve not just every cryptocurrency project in the space, but systems all over the world (governments, corporations, non-profits, clubs, and more). I think the DAC Toolkit will help many future DACs built on STEEM who need tools for organizing themselves as a DAC. I see a future where we all work together to create the world we want to live in, not just to support our tribalistic team. I'm not a fan of tribalism and when I hear some of this language, it puts me on the defensive a little bit. Let's not push away those who are creating value for STEEM. The output of value is what should matter most.
RE: Clarifying my decision not to support EOS-related posts and witnesses (100% of post rewards donated to curation initiatives)