I don't usually comment on these kinds of discussions, but after reading your post I felt like saying something.
We've only had limited direct contact, yet I've been following your work for about a year now. During that time, I've seen the projects you've built, the support you've given to others, your manual curation, and also some of the challenges and frustrations you've openly shared along the way.
What struck me most in your post is that people often judge what they can easily measure, while much of what truly matters can't be reduced to a single number. Time, commitment, responsibility, supporting projects, helping others, and simply showing up year after year are things that don't fit neatly into a metric.
As someone who also prefers manual curation, I know that it takes far more effort than simply letting things run on autopilot. Whenever one of my own posts received your support, I appreciated it because I knew there was an actual person behind that vote.
What I've observed over the last year is not someone who doesn't care about Hive, but someone who keeps investing time, energy, and resources into it despite setbacks and criticism.
A while ago I came across an analysis of Hive where your name and mine happened to be mentioned in the same sentence. The context wasn't particularly flattering for either of us, but I have to admit it still made me smile a little. Not because of the comment itself, but because being associated with people who have left a visible mark on this ecosystem is not something I consider negative.
So thank you for what you do. People are free to disagree, question, or criticize, but sometimes it's worth remembering that those who contribute the most are often carrying burdens that others never see.
And for what it's worth: I think your work speaks much louder than any KE number ever could.
One small disclaimer: English isn't my native language, so I used AI assistance for the translation. The message itself, however, reflects my own thoughts and feelings.
Appreciate the comment, now I'm curious what that mention was. :D
For me personally I care a lot more about how much time users put into their hive activity over KE, if they're contributing then who cares if they have no stake, it mainly sucks for them next time hive goes up and they may find themselves in a position where it's hard to earn that stake back since more people come back and new ones arrive.
I do however still see a lot of, let's say, careless curation. Where projects/stakeholders don't care if the author isn't being consumed at all and there's no signs of it anywhere as well as no signs of the author even trying to connect with others and build an audience to justify the rewards they get. They may not be big right now in terms of $ but it's still a lot more hive than many others get who may be doing more and trying harder. That's something I wish curators would try better at so others aren't forced to step in with downvotes when it becomes too much.
I even have friends who've posted occasionally but if I noticed they weren't really contributing in other ways I've had to ignore their posts or vote them much lower due to it, while others seem to think that we have to keep these authors active and posting at any cost, even if they barely do anything else other than post and collect rewards.
So it takes a lot for me to downvote some users and I never zero out the rewards on those usually, but I try to stay neutral about it and justify it by what I see after doing some research and crunching some numbers. Some times I may downvote some users for other reasons but hey, we're only human. :D
I notice I'm already following you, I haven't been able to curate much the past year as I've focused my curation on traffic generation, but hopefully I can split up voting power a bit more in the future.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply.
Your point about valuing a person's contribution more than a metric really resonates with me. Numbers can tell part of the story, but they rarely tell the whole story.
I'm happy to share the post. The context wasn't particularly flattering, and the comparison between us wasn't really based on the same circumstances, which is probably why it made me smile a bit. Some of the observations about me were linked to experiments I carried out with multiple accounts while trying to better understand how certain aspects of Hive work. Whether all of the conclusions were correct is another question, but it was certainly an interesting read and I learned quite a bit from the experience.
I also understand your perspective on curation. I mostly curate manually as well and try to look beyond a post itself and consider the person behind it. That's not always easy, and nobody gets it right every time, but I think it's a better approach than relying solely on numbers and metrics.
As for the mention, I think what amused me most was not the context itself, but simply finding my name in the same sentence as someone whose contributions to Hive I've been observing and respecting for quite some time.
Here's the post:
https://peakd.com/hive-122609/@bpcvoter2/ou-can-keep-lying-the-blockchain-will-keep-recording-and-in-the-end-only-one-of-those-two-things-will-remain-when-the-noise-has
Hahah yeah okay I get it now, guess that's a sign that you're becoming someone on Hive if that account mentions you. xD
Haha, I hadn't thought about it that way. 😄
Let's just say it was a memorable way of discovering that people are paying attention.
"I even have friends who've posted occasionally but if I noticed they weren't really contributing in other ways I've had to ignore their posts or vote them much lower due to it, while others seem to think that we have to keep these authors active and posting at any cost, even if they barely do anything else other than post and collect rewards."
I think this is a really honest approach. I really appreciate and respect it.
Support engagement with a delegation to topcomment:
50HP - 100HP - 250HP - 500HP - 750HP - 1000HP - 1500HP