"You can stop right there. Downvotes aren't punitive, they are voting on where rewards go. You are free to post and no one is punishing you, but you aren't entitled to rewards unless the blockchain voting allocates them to you, end of story."

Let's be honest for a moment. In your downvote activity, you're not voting where you want the rewards to go. They are safe and sound in the reward pool and haven't gone anywhere. What you're doing is voting where you don't want them to go, and that is punitive. It's plain as day that you are blatantly targeting specific types of content with your downvotes. And if you're saying I want my vote to minusculely increase all other upvoted content at the expense of an [individual post], there's no way to see that other than as a punitive action of sorts.

I noticed you were talking to @truthforce about comments, balking at the number of comments on some of the content you're downvoting. Well, here's the thing, every time you ding a post, it drops a few if not many places in any given feed. This kind of action makes it less noticeable and almost ensures less engagement on the content. And if we address comments being the deciding factor of whether a post merits receiving one of your downvotes. Then why are you upvoting instead of downvoting the spam comments on your @hbd.funder?

Nobody is engaging with those spam comments with comments. And you have them upvoted to the tune of hundreds of dollars each daily while reaping massive amounts of curation rewards on autopilot by curating textbook spam. Now, I know this project is allegedly for a good cause. However, you're gaming the curation scheme in one of the laziest ways possible to benefit yourself and your project all-the-while griefing people who are trying damn hard and putting forth a lot of effort to make it in this ecosystem.

I know that code is law, technically speaking, but it's like the 'Law of the Jungle.' The best of men in days of old have expounded upon this ruthless fact, that there is a thin veneer between civilization and all-out chaos, and they've created additional layers of law for the betterment of humankind. The most simple, effective, and least-offensive form of these is natural law, and all other forms of laws are built on top of that one.

Here's a thought experiment, a crazy man can go and murder or rob someone and be in complete harmony with the law of the jungle. But that doesn't make his actions right, and that's where natural law comes into play. I think it would greatly benefit the HIVE platform if the DEV team tried their best to conform to natural law--this is opposed to the "law of the jungle." You see, if HIVE doesn't feel or gel right with people, then the lack of retention will be the sole blame of stakeholders like yourself who make it this way.

We're still in a quasi-state of first mover advantage. We got some time to get good and show how engaging HIVE can be. But if people like yourself keep shitting on the user experience of those who demonstrate intelligence and show an effort--then you'll have nobody except yourself to blame for just another random token that fails to reach its best potential.