As I mentioned in the post “About Curation,” I’m not an influencer, nor an onboarder, nor do I belong to any curation group. I experiment, I try, I fail, I get back up, and I develop strategies. Apparently, judging by the results presented in my previous post, I’m doing well. This isn’t just an opinion—it’s backed by analytical facts.
This is the second part of the Proof of Curation initiative and is not intended to be a tutorial or a curation manual (ABC). You can do whatever you want—you’re free to choose.
I’m simply to share my insights and methodologies, which may be useful for anyone who wants to earn more curation rewards and contribute to a more balanced and diverse system.
Don’t just eat the first meal they put on the table. Choose the menu yourself. Always be wary of the algorithms that distribute posts in the feeds of different front-ends. Here and on any platform.
Go straight to the communities! The most important tool is the links that lead to the communities. Peakd, Ecency, HiveSuite (I use these). That’s where the most recent posts appear first in the feed, except in communities that feature pinned posts.
That’s where you’ll find a wider variety of users and topics more quickly than in any front-end feed. There are communities for all tastes and interests. Check out the ones you follow—and the ones you don’t.
However, keep in mind that some users sometimes post only on personal blogs and not in communities. For that reason alone, you should check the feed on the front-end platform you usually use.
But be careful: always look for the “News” feed. Don’t go to “Trends” or “Hot.” Otherwise, you might get frustrated seeing posts that are just 3 minutes old getting more engagement than you’ll get all week 😆. It’s important to have a positive mindset to curate content effectively. Avoid noise.
Don’t just sit around waiting for the fish to come to you—go directly to where the fish are. Head to the communities.
The expression “time is money” has never made more sense than it does here. To make the most of your vote, you have to try to vote before the curatorial groups, orcas, and whales do. This is where things get interesting.
Since we’re in the middle of a World Cup, I’ll draw an analogy to help you understand better. Imagine you’re a “scout” on a mission to discover new talent to present to club executives. In this case, those executives are the orcas and whales. Their powerful and valuable votes will boost yours—because you voted before they did.
If you keep presenting them with good talent, the curation groups—the orcas and the whales—will follow your lead and wait for you to vote first so they can vote next. Take advantage of this first-mover advantage. Build good relationships with the different marine species. Anticipate their needs, give them what they want, and you’ll be well rewarded for it.
The first few minutes, the first few hours, are crucial. If you vote on a post that’s more than 24 hours old, you start to lose the power of your curation. Sometimes I don’t mind that, especially when it’s something surprising—or a new user who just joined and I only noticed later.
This is one of the three metrics that make up the Curation Quality Score (CQS) system in the ManteCurated Live tool. The goal here is breadth—to reach as many unique authors as possible.
A unique author is defined as one whom you vote for exactly once over a 7-day period. The system updates every 7 days (after the rewards for each vote have been paid out), which means that if you vote for User A, they become a unique author 7 days later. If you vote for User A: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, or 7 times over the course of 7 days, that user remains just one unique author, and you lose breadth.
Those with high HP can vote for the same author several days a week and still curate with breadth, because with more HP, they can cast more votes. Those with modest HP need to manage their votes wisely. This is especially because the CQS system considers 100 unique authors to be ideal for vibrant curation.
Take my HP as an example. It’s around 17K. With my VP (Voting Power) fully charged, I can only cast 50 votes—between 75% and 100%.
VP recharges only 20% per day—can you imagine the mental gymnastics I have to go through to reach those 100 unique authors in 7 days? I can’t vote for the same author twice in 7 days. My HP doesn’t allow it. Those with more HP can do it easily.
This is always a sensitive issue, and I’ll leave it up to each person to decide. I also have my favorite users, but given my modest HP, I can’t vote on every post they make each week. It’s my choice. It has consequences—I know.
Several users who were used to always getting my vote on their quality posts in the past have “left.” Two of them even “muted” me. I don’t mind, nor am I upset by it. I remain indifferent; I have to let it go because they’re human. What they think is their own business. One thing is certain for me: if I see posts of theirs that deserve it, I’ll vote for them. I need their good content to increase my curation rewards.
However, I don’t hesitate to ignore the score if there are exceptions that justify it. I’m compensating some users with BEE tokens (it’s symbolic, since it’s the native token of HIVE-ENGINE, but it’s worth more than my vote), so as not to lose sight of the goal of reaching 100 unique users per week.
Another key metric in the Curation Quality Score system. It relates to how you distribute the percentage (value) of your vote among each post.
Many users prefer quantity, so they lower the percentage (value) of their vote. For example, they give 10% to some, 50% to others, 80% to others, and 100% to a few. This ruins everything. It contributes to a high Gini coefficient—the Gini coefficient is a mathematical metric (ranging from 0 to 1) originally used in economics to measure income inequality.
It’s more important—and more profitable—to increase the percentage (value) of your vote than the number of votes. Based on what I’ve tested, the ideal range is between 75% and 100%. Never less.
Since the beginning of the year, HIVE has been prioritizing infrastructure stability (voting frequency) rather than allowing a barrage of votes (which was previously limited only by VP). This is a change in resource usage policy, not necessarily in the mathematical formula of the reward pool.
The economic weight of a vote on Hive is determined by R-shares (reward shares), which are derived from your Hive Power (stake) multiplied by your VP at the time of voting.
The VP (Voting Power) system forces users to be selective curators, prioritizing quality over quantity.
One of the smartest—but most misunderstood—metrics. It was created as an analytical tool and has turned into a forum for premature judgments.
KE compares the amount of rewards earned (as an author and curator) with the amount of HIVE held in stake (HIVE Power).
If your KE is greater than 1, it means you’ve removed HIVE from your stake (performed a Power Down). If the number is high, alarm bells start ringing. There are curators who don’t vote, there are automated voting systems programmed not to vote, and there’s a kind of stigma that’s not at all pleasant—neither for the user nor for the curator.
This tool provides each curator with the opportunity to analyze the situation rather than jump to conclusions. There’s no artificial intelligence here, no bots, and no technology that can be relied upon. Only the human brain can make this assessment.
A high KE can have several explanations and must be analyzed in context. The blockchain provides all the necessary information to understand whether HIVE remains in the ecosystem—whether through community management, investment in layer-2 tokens or games, or strategies involving the purchase of HBD to exchange for HIVE when the price drops—to increase Hive Power.
A high KE can also reflect human needs. If a user creates value, participates in, and strengthens the ecosystem, why should they be penalized? HIVE has a strong Venezuelan community, and many are facing profound crises, exacerbated by the recent earthquakes. To judge those who resort to Power Down to protect their families or rebuild their lives is to forget that behind every wallet, there is a person.
Other factors that can increase KE: those who create content about food or clothing (knitting, etc.), particularly in predominantly female communities.
To diversify their content, people need to buy ingredients or even specific kitchen utensils. So, it makes sense for them to Power Down what they’ve already earned to invest in future posts. However, they’re always creating content and interacting with other users.
The same goes for clothing content—do you have any idea how much work goes into making a post like that? Not to mention the time they have to set aside to document all the processes involved. It’s quite different from a 300-word post with 4 or 5 beautiful sunset photos. It makes sense for them to do a Power Down to buy more fabric, more yarn from there, etc., to give us more content.
🚨 But hold on—there are also the “extractors.” Lots of them, actually. They don’t interact; many don’t even vote. There are users with two- and three-digit KE scores who are often supported by curation groups and stakeholders. Yes, I said two and three digits.
In conclusion, KE needs to be analyzed objectively by a human mind. Bots, agents, and specialized tools only serve to ostracize.
You may have heard—or read in a comment somewhere—that if you vote for a post that will be well-rewarded, you’ll get more curation rewards. That may be one of the reasons most people are drawn to these “lucrative” posts.
But I’m here to debunk that myth.
I voted on these two posts on the same day, just a few hours apart. The one at the top, by Aliento, received more votes and comments, and was rewarded much more than the one at the bottom, by Senses18 (a recent user).
However, my curation rewards were much higher (more than double) on the Senses18 post, which received fewer rewards. 🤷♂
The appeal of this blockchain. Myths are being debunked!
It’s simple: Aliento’s first post (though more valuable) was split among 647 users, many of whom had high vote values (distribution is proportional to the value of each vote). In the second post, although the amount was lower, it was split among far fewer users.
This proves that if you vote on a post by a newcomer—someone with few rewards and votes—you don’t lose out on rewards because of it. Quite the opposite, as in this case. Do you understand now what makes the Proof of Brain protocol so fascinating?
Be diverse in your curation. Look for communities, themes, and topics that don’t interest you as much.
For example, I’m a little crazy, but I can’t see myself knitting. However, I like to seek out those communities to highlight posts that took a lot of effort to create. And when I say those, I mean others too.
Strive for balance. Imagine you have 20 votes to give out each day. Divide them up: welcome newcomers, support new users who’ve already posted a few times, highlight community posts, support posts from stakeholders, contests, support your favorite users, focus on your favorite topics, and you can even help combat inflation on various Buildawhale posts 🔥.
Is subjective. Some people have plenty of time to curate, others have little time, and still others have no time at all.
I have my professional, personal, and family life. But I manage to set aside (on average) 90 minutes a day. I divide that time into three parts of the day: morning (two 15-minute periods), afternoon (two 15-minute periods), and evening (30 minutes).
During this time, I’m not always voting, mind you. Sometimes I wait to boost the VP.
Meanwhile, I analyze users and their posts. Five questions my brain seeks quick answers to: 1) how long they’ve been on HIVE, 2) whether they interact (Activities/Out), 3) if they have downvotes and why, 4) how often they post, and finally, 5) their KE. If it’s less than 1, they’re clean. If it’s over 5, I’ll look into it. I’ll check their wallet for transactions. If any doubts arise, I’ll use the tools available on HIVE until I reach a conclusion.
At first, I thought about creating a curation trail for those who have limited time but still want to curate. But I decided against it. You can always check out my “Curation History” here or here. It’s a starting point, a path, a guideline. But always follow your instincts.
For those who don’t have time for curation but want to get some return from it—believing that diverse and fair curation is beneficial for the ecosystem—consider delegating part of your HP. In that case, I would pay a developer to set up a system that sends you 100% of the corresponding return on the HP you're lending every day. You can turn it off at any time. Think about it.
Every vote is more than just a reward.🐝
