as i was saying, its by consent.. if someone is leading a community. it has thousands of people with high engagement..
there is a lot of value coming from that community etc..

Gems is about the largest community in the hive, and the content they curate makes me want to hurl.
I think this viewpoint is validated by the lack of newbs overrunning us.
They have not reduced the dead fish population by even a small percentage.
What retention they have effected, imo, is a bunch of greedy grubbin' brown nosers, hardly the phenotype I would want to encourage, if I wanted a successful platform.

Curie, even after the changes that they made, can still kma, too.

When whales, or their delegatees, vote everybody else's vote value is diminished.
No way is the wisdom of the select few better for distributing the coin than the wisdom of the crowd, imo.

When the biggest 'communities'/'curation initiatives', looking at you msp, state that my content is 'too controversial' and then for the next 5+ years never vote for my content despite near daily participation, some days, imo, quite amusing participation, then no, don't look for me to support anything that helps increase what they, nor their clones, do.

I was here when they still had to use ned's posting key because delegation wasn't in the code, yet.
I remember clearly getting the back of their hands.
Their position on the matter has not changed one bit, nor mine.

I've made it my goal to point out how the math works until the minnows wise up and stop begging to be bent over by those that vote more than 1000mv in a day.
Clearly, that is a larger motivation for my participation than some banal 'curation project', or the meager rewards I get for being an active voice in the consensus.

That said, if anybody wants to delegate to me, that would meet with my non-rejection.
At least until what rewards I have gathered equals a radical change in what I have going.

The only reason I accepted tsu's circlejerk was because I knew to reject it would lock me out of any chance of significant rewards at all.
That instinct proved true for the next 3 years.
It is still proving true right now.

Initially, my instinct said to reject it on principle, 'ganging up to increase rewards is very classy', but I still need the money that selling my honor got me.
It's in my wallets, now.
Waiting until it is worth enough to radically alter my future.
At which point I will sell of a small percentage to get my food forest set up and await the next cyclical disaster from the sun.

not sure how free speech relates to this

When you only vote content that pleases you, your claim of 'supporting free speech' is tenuous, at best.
Dissent is a very important viewpoint in the search for consensus, if finding 'truth' is your goal.
But, only voting things you agree with, things that only trigger positive emotional responses in you, is not 'supporting free speech', it is supporting speech you agree with.

i am saying im asking to reward those accounts with delegation

In other words, you want these accounts, that meet with your approval, to take money away from the accounts that don't meet with your approval because you like how that looks to play out in theory?

Yes, I'd define that as treating those accounts 'better', and the accounts not so favored as 'worse'.
Your plan incentivizes those you agree with and disincentivizes those who don't agree with you.

reward those accounts with delegation to help the entire ecosystem including you and them .. everyone..

I'm calling bs on that one, good luck getting anybody to curate baah, logiczombie, yayogerardo, or any number of other accounts I could name.
Most of whom have been driven to pob or blurt, if not out of the ecosystem, entirely.

Your initiative only hurts the people not afraid to speak their opinions openly.
I could give you the names, yes plural, of folks that told me they were warned that being my friend would cost them rewards.
I don't know how many just stopped voting me without letting me know why.
God bless, kenny.

I don't figure those folks that warned my friends away from voting my content have altered their opinions any, at all.
So, F'em.
In the neck.

community leaders

How about we drop the hierarchical point of view and treat each other as equals?

From the comment below:

upvote on behalf of ecoTrain?

What does that mean?
If you want to delegate to me, fine, if you want me to vote your stake for you, you have got to be kidding.
I'd rather be held down and dull needles be inserted into my really sensitive spots.

I would be interested to see which posts you choose!?

Hive.vote offers curation trails, set a low hp alt account to follow me and problem solved, eh?
Or, you can use peakd to see who I am voting.

IF you choose, you can follow along behind your dust vote account with a larger amount.
Presuming my curation happens to meets with your approval.

I don't mean to come off sounding callous, but my hide can only be chapped so long before I start acting like I have a burr under my saddle blanket.