I actually think that self voting has its place at times. Self voting forms a major part of maintaining the SBD peg to the downside.

Currently, only 30% of the value of author rewards is coming from dilution of existing stakeholders. 70% is coming from the SBD speculators, who are undermining the SBD peg. Fortunately as Steem Power holders, we have the power to direct our vote to ensure that newly created Steem Dollars are used to remove Steem from the market. By powering up, you remove liquid Steem from the market and constrain supply. By the law of Supply and Demand, this constrained supply increases the price of Steem.

The price of Steem is what determines how many SBD get created each day. By forcing the price of Steem up, the net result is that there is more money available for author rewards AND stakeholders see a greater return on their investment. Of course not everyone gains, the big losers in this situation are the SBD speculators. The sooner they learn NOT to speculate on SBD the better.

My formula for how much self voting is justified by the SBD price is the excess purchasing power provided by speculators over stakeholder dilution.

At an SBD price of $1, this limit is 0. At an SBD price of $5.66, it's just under 70%. Although it only applies if you use it to power up, and I'm not actually approaching 70% self voting myself.

An alternative approach would be to self vote, purchase Steem and then send it to @null, burning it. However I don't think this is necessary, and it makes sense for stakeholders who believe in Steem to aim to increase their say in the project by using the excess purchasing power to power up. At the same time, people who don't really believe in Steem are doing the same thing for pure profit, or just self voting to cash out. It is not desirable that the stake majority ends up in the hands of people who don't believe in the project.