My VP has been lower lately due to the GU community after onboarding tons of new people and seeing a lot of new content emerge, it's also one of the nice things with VP that when you need it more it will be there and not deplete instantly but scale down while still giving out decent sized votes and in a way "refresh faster" or at least feel like it. I'll be trying to get it back up, in general I like keeping it at 80-100% as well as it feels nice to give a post that deserves it a max vote and seeing it give as much as possible of your vp.

In general for ocd, though, since we curate and get vote recommendations by other curators manually, we've been having a bit harder time to deplete all of our voting power daily. We could of course just go off the cuff and throw votes around to people who already do well (a question I often get from people is why OCD isn't voting them which often is cause they already do quite well), but we feel it's much better to give people realistic rewards so the platform can scale while distributing the rest to those who could be better rewarded. This is why we have been voting a bit more often on the hbd.funder comments to help stabilize HBD with remaining VP we have since the userbase has not grown by as much as the price of Hive has. If we start seeing a lot new content creators join in each and every community then we will gladly curate those who need it more and not throw votes at the stabilizer but for now we think this is the best outcome and would hope others would feel the same way than just constantly stack votes or autovotes on the same people over and over no matter what they're posting and getting the same usernames on trending daily.

Later on we believe that downvotes will play a great role (if used wisely and well) to make sure posts don't get overrewarded too often or that the same people get rewards all the time as it may discourage certain votestackers to continue voting on the same authors to keep their rewards at realistic levels. In general I think it's something important because if we can't manage this and get angry over downvotes or constantly just attempt to maximize your own posts without caring if others are getting their fair share it'll mean that the way the reward pool works right now won't be able to scale and that we may just as well completely change it or move it over to another layer or reward the tokens and layers the same way we reward witnesses where a certain percentage goes to them from the newly created Hive depending on certain factors.

Anyway, this got a bit lengthy and maybe deep. Just something to think about if we want to make sure curation works as good as we want it for the future of Hive and that it can scale with the tools given to us at the time. I realize there's still a lot of stigma and hate towards downvotes, for some I do understand it as well as they can be used badly just as much (if not more) than how they can be used well - much like upvotes, so I really think more people should get over how they feel about giving and receiving them and just appreciate what they're meant to do and try to use them well and enjoy the process and advantages Hive gives you in general from the upvote rewards. Excessive/malicious downvotes are often times only affect a tiny percentage of users and I'm sure that if someone were to use them "well" but be countered with retaliation than most bigger stakeholders and curators would come to their side to counter them similar to if they were to be downvoted too much.

It'll be interesting to see how the use of them evolves but to answer your question;
how much VP you have doesn't really change how much returns you get since the curve is now linear so I doubt it matters. :P