Reporte de curación de Chess Brothers para el día 01/09/2026

Why the downvote, @rutablockchain?

Hi @stayoutoftherz

I've been downvoting the accounts @chessbrotherspro and @entropia for months for the exact same reason. Although in my opinion there could be more reasons—such as the fact that she self-votes over 13% of the time (when she could be supporting other authors) and that she doesn't create original content more than twice a year—the main reason for the downvote is that she posts more than one curation report per day.

I already discussed this with the owner of the accounts, @eniolw. In the days that followed, he seemed to have understood; however, some time later he went right back to the same spamming practice.

He seems to feel entitled to his quota of automated votes. If he misses a day without publishing a report, he posts it later because, to him, they are cumulative. Combining two or three reports into one? Never—he wouldn't waste his vote quota.

Since his rewards have increased and he continues with the same habit, we included @rutablockchain. Now I'm receiving retaliatory downvotes from @mathowl, who also believes he's entitled to extra curation rewards from curation posts.

In short: although I don't agree with curation reports because they bring no value, I realize that the majority on Hive has normalized them. But going from that to accepting more than one a day seems like clear abuse to me. In fact, when he only posts one a day, I don't downvote him.

This text was translated from Spanish...

But the self vote from that account is just under 1c, do you really think that warrants a downvote of >10fold that value? This is quite overdoing.
Of course you can downvote whatever you want, but as you know, there is no clear rule forbidding self votes. Downvotes should be restricted to spam, plagiarism, AI slop or criminal content.
And "having no value" to justify a dv from an account that isn´t even active like @rutablockchain seems also not very logic.

Perhaps it wasn't clear due to the translation.

The reason for the downvote is the spam—publishing reports two or three times a day. Do you support this habit?

But there are no 2-3 reports per day.

When someone posts once a day, I don't downvote them

Hi, @stayputoftherz.

I already discussed this with the owner of the accounts, @eniolw. In the days that followed, he seemed to have understood.

I don't know what this guy is talking about, but he has never directly reached out to me. His opening comment is a lie. If he wanted to talk, he knows how to contact us on-chain or via Discord.

Instead, he started downvoting our project without justification. When we tagged him to ask why, he responded with defamatory comments. Since this is the first time he's trying to "make a case", I'm addressing his claims directly now:

He seems to feel entitled to his quota of automated votes. If he misses a day without publishing a report, he posts it later because, to him, they are cumulative. Combining two or three reports into one? Never—he wouldn't waste his vote quota.

Look at that, by using "he", he pretends Chess Brothers is a solo project, proving he hasn't bothered to learn how we operate.

His claim that posting more than once a day is "spamming" misunderstands Hive. Bandwidth is governed by Resource Credits, so by his logic, commenting multiple times a day would also be spam. Who thinks that way?

The truth is daily curation reports are our 6-year project tradition. We average SEVEN posts a week, and minor overlaps only happen due to circumstances beyond our control, like local infrastructure issues in Venezuela. Curation trails rarely upvote delayed posts anyway, and what's up with that provided you're actually averaging the same 7 posts per week?

Meanwhile, he targets smaller accounts while ignoring massive users who post multiple times daily. That is a clear double standard.

Since his rewards have increased and he continues with the same habit, we included @rutablockchain.

@rutablockchain has never contacted us either, making it seem like he's acting unilaterally. Acting in good faith means communicating, not launching downvote campaigns.

Now I'm receiving retaliatory downvotes from @mathowl, who also believes he's entitled to extra curation rewards from curation posts.

That's ironic, since he's hidden behind "downvoting is a feature" to justify his actions, but complains when downvoted back. It makes you wonder, doesn't it?

In short: although I don't agree with curation reports because they bring no value, I realize that the majority on Hive has normalized them.

As said previously, a minor delay shifting a timestamp doesn't change our net volume of seven reports a week. Why doesn't he persecute the big projects that also keep a seven post per week ratio?

But going from that to accepting more than one a day seems like clear abuse to me. In fact, when he only posts one a day, I don't downvote him.

This is false; he has downvoted consecutive posts regardless of timing. This is easily demonstrable.

The real abuse here is spreading defamatory claims and using stake to damage a legitimate, long-standing community project like ours.

BTW, I could elaborate much further with more arguments and evidence, but I kept it brief to keep the discussion manageable.

Sure, @chessbrotherspro is at the top with 13.16% over the last 7 days. But if you actually look at the rest of that chart, it's pretty clear you're just cherry-picking.

That same screenshot shows a massive 86.84% of our voting power went straight to the community.

Check the pie chart again. It's super spread out, showing we're backing dozens of independent authors. If a project were just trying to "milk" rewards or whatever you're hinting at, it wouldn't be giving away nearly 90% of its stake to other creators.

We've been doing this for over 6 years now. Allocating a tiny slice of VP to keep the lights on is pretty standard stuff on Hive. It's even less of a big deal for small projects like ours where nobody is getting rich off a 13% self-vote anyway. You're kind of missing the big picture here.

You're also overlooking that using a fraction of our VP for maintenance while channeling almost all of it into the chess community isn't abuse. It's just how you keep a project running long-term.

Honestly, far from proving any "farming", your screenshot basically just proves we're active and community-first. Appreciate you posting the receipts for us!

@stayputoftherz

But check the last posts, I see only one per day, so why do you still downvote?