Ok. As we've already stated, we do NOT post 2 or 3 times daily as a rule. Whenever you see that, it's an EXCEPTION. This is easily verifiable by looking at our weekly average of about 7 posts (the equivalent of one post a day). @stayoutoftherz previously pointed this out as well, so don't worry about our posting frequency, because it is balanced and well within fair use.
Regarding rewards, you're right that there has never been a single consensus on Hive that satisfies everyone. However, many who support us are familiar with our initiatives both ON and OFF the platform, and upvoting is simply their way of showing appreciation. Others support us because they trust our vision and want to grow alongside us through our delegation program.
We appreciate your feedback and are open to tweaking and expanding our content. In fact, we've already started doing so by sharing highlights from our English conversational club.
That said, we will keep publishing our daily curation reports (including occasional delayed ones when necessary) alongside any extra content we find value in sharing. We have full autonomy over how we run our blog, and our posts fully comply with platform guidelines while harming no one.
Thanks for your feedback.
Really? What would he think if there were a Hive curation project with this kind of activity:
A total of 17 reports in 7 days, which is significantly more than our 7 posts over the same period.
An average of 2.42 reports per day, far exceeding his "standard" of one report per day.
Posting up to THREE and FIVE times in a single day, far exceeding the "alarm" he expressed over us.
Post rewards far higher than ours, totaling approximately $106 in one week.
Yet interestingly, he hasn't downvoted a single one of their posts, nor has he made "complaints" and accusations and used his project account to fuel the fire, even though, by his own logic, they use the exact same template daily, post multiple times a day, self-vote, and therefore are "abusing" the system.
And this is just one example. Should we tell that project that this user disagrees with them and that, from now on, they will give them downvotes?
I wonder why his moral crusade falls short when a curation project is this large instead of small like ours. I also wonder what we'd uncover if we started digging into the history of the project he claims to represent.