I'm totally on board with the "How do we make Hive better" campaign. Personally, I'm not convinced that token burn curation submission is damaging to Hive, except that many big investors have made that claim and seem convinced.

I'll say it again, I truly desire to make Hive better and I will add this: if turning off the CCD voting service will help do that, then I'll support the decision. My only two issues are:

1. the time, effort, skill and creative energy put into the project being nullified really bothers me. It's a brilliant voting service, the best I've interacted with in almost 8 years on the Blockchain. Again, if a case can be made to justify its termination, I'm all ears, otherwise ... Why?

2. All the CCD bought by investors will no longer be burned. I see no issue with a manual voting system that burns tokens. Every HIVE or swap.hive exchanged for the token, then burned for curation consideration, is more HIVE off the market, less sell orders, more potential buy orders. Adding an incentive to buy hive and potentially more buy orders for CCD, (which is currently under-valued in my opinion), while also reducing CCD supply, seems like a win, win, win. But again, perhaps there's more to this that I just don't understand and haven't figured out in all the time I've been on chain.

I sincerely desire to make Hive better. If terminating the CCD voter will do this, then I will 100% enthusiastically support it. But if this is just a "paid curation = bad" campaign, I would need some use cases and evidence of that. There are smart people out there that probably know better than me, I just don't want to see a high quality service like this terminated without a very good reason.