I use Peakd products so I've supported Peakd now and in the past. I don't use Ecency so I have not supported Ecency now or in the past. Does not mean I'm against the existence of Ecency. I'm happy people have options and freedom to choose.

This is how I vote on proposals too, and actually in these two specific examples, the same exact way for the same exact reasons.

But when people have the luxury and entitlement to vote, they should do so fully informed and fully aware of the things they vote on, not just future looking hype, but also past performance. Of the projects themselves and how they actually did or did not help the chain community, the crypto value and/or the chain technology. (grow a healthy engaged and retained userbase, grow money value, improve infrastructure.) One may or may not also choose to consider the past performance of project sponsors as trustworthy, reliable and competent and capable. Those are the levers that move underneath "future hype" coming to fruition anyway.

I need real hard, rigid arguments for these things to win my vote, and a couple of the most controversial proposals right now, basically SPL and ValuePlan really deserve a lot of scrutiny for the size of the asks vs these criteria. (grow a healthy engaged and retained userbase, grow money value, improve infrastructure.)