I completely understand both points of view.

On the one hand, I understand the developers and projects behind platforms like Ecency or Leo, and others I've seen. Creating and maintaining an interface, as I've read, requires time, infrastructure, and resources. For them, using their Hive Power to vote for those who use their site or delegate content to them is a logical marketing and retention strategy: it's their way of building user loyalty and ensuring the sustainability of their project.

On the other hand, as a curator who doesn't have an interface or vested interests, my approach is different. When evaluating content, I don't focus on the platform it was published on, but rather on the quality of the content. I believe that if we limit ourselves to voting only for users of a specific interface, we risk fragmenting the community and excluding valuable creators simply for not using the "right" tool.

Ultimately, Hive's freedom allows both models to coexist: platforms that use their Hive Power as a growth tool and independent curators who seek valuable content regardless of its origin. Both perspectives contribute to the ecosystem, but finding a balance will always be key to avoiding isolating new users, and we must prioritize retention above all else.

I think ScrobbleLife's curation approach is spot on, especially because of its transparency and the value it places on interaction. Perhaps other projects should be more transparent and accountable to ensure everything is as clear as possible.

It's always good to look for the best way to build a better and more equitable place for everyone.