It's not like it's hurting anyone, as there's a sybil-fee deducted that goes toward the pool, and self-zapping from low-value accounts also have less "weight" compared to active accounts.

In Digital Marketing that is a strategy called social proof, which is used to show to customers that your product is well received by the general public.

Selfzapping could create an artificial social proof that your post is relevant. "That many zaps? The community clearly thinks this is good."

Social proof works. You are more likely to zap a popular post - a.k.a. a post that was zapped a lot - even after knowing what social proof is.

We’re considering increasing the Sybil fee to 20%.

I’d like to also make boost easier and competitive incentives-wise with self-zapping.

There's nothing you can do about multiple accounts. You can even do some IP-based control, but that's easily circumvented. As for stackers zapping their own accounts, I don't see much of a problem, more sats go to the rewards.

It is tried a lot here by new stackers. @k00b has done a lot to disincentivize it. There was a real dramatic incident a year or so ago where a new stacker zapped himself a million sats. It was funny. Recently, a guy who I won't call out since he's still around did it on a very well crafted ai post. It worked. People thought he had legitimately garnered 100k sats and everyone kept zapping.

It reeks of desperation to me, tbh

Its not possible, right? Unless you take the time to fund multiple accounts. And what is the point? If a post is good, it will get zapped.

I've done this by mistake on Nostr more times than I care to admit.

I guess this is people who want to bump their post up the rankings/promote it, so why not just make self zaps funds that go to the pool, because it's just another form of ads/promotion

It's looks like jacking off. On the other hand zap me who never jacked off.

Stacker News clearly labels them as "boosted" so I don't see it as an issue because it's so transparent