RE: The definition of vote collusion @cryptopassion et Al.
because I think the platform would grow faster with the implementation of diminishing returns, and in the long run my earned Steem would have a higher value
I agree with this - and the fact that I agree with it weakens my original protestation substantially.
However, as soon as you started to write four mushroom posts a day (which actually anyway you are not doing because it takes some time to produce quality content), then of course every steemstem vote for you would be significantly weaker than the previous one - especially also if until now steemstem would also have upvoted every of your comments ...
Moreover, I think I misunderstood the nature of the problem such that I've also mistaken the nature of the solution. I only ever post twice a week, in terms of substantive mycology posts, because to do more than that really isn't plausible while maintaining depth. It's only in this recent sbd bubble I've been posting other non science content as often as daily -and even that feels like a lot to me.
But i see the problem diminishing returns would address involves posting frequency on an entirely different scale - and I agee with you that actually the posting/voting patterns that would be affected are unlikely to hurt most quality content creators by virtue of the sheer amount of time it takes to create that content.
Nice to hear that I could convince you (maybe partly). I might be wrong, but I really think it should be as you wrote yourself now: diminishing returns (implemented in a correct way) would affect high frequency spammers more seriously than people like you.
You may also think about the advantages of a sigmoid reward curve: It makes self-voting on an 'empty' post less attractive as it is rather flat at the beginning. But it also prevents extremely high rewards (other than n^2 did), because in the end it is getting flat again ...