I’m not an influencer, I’m not an onboarder, and I don’t belong to any curation group. It’s worth noting that this post isn’t meant to show off my trophies or brag about my noble achievements.
The purpose of this post is to prove that a relatively new account (in my case, 2 years old) with a modest and humble HP can perform excellently in curation and benefit from it.
It is a well-known fact that those with more HP have more voting power and more influence in deciding DHF proposals. That’s fair! However, when it comes to curation, that power may not be directly proportional to healthy curation.
Using your brain!
The narrative underlying the HIVE blockchain is based on two essential protocols: Proof of Stake and Proof of Brain (POB). This is the essence of HIVE!
Proof of Stake gives power to those with money. Proof of Brain gives power to those with talent.
This is the wonderful story behind this Web3 project. It’s not just for those with more money or material wealth. It’s also for those who make the best use of POB, which is responsible for maintaining the quality of content—something that stimulates the creative economy by harnessing the power of human subjectivity.
It is the “Brain” that transforms the blockchain into a vibrant and diverse social network. For curation to be truly diverse, the curator must act as a “noise filter,” using their voting power to shed light on corners of the blockchain that the rest of the network has not yet seen.
In mid-April, 
Even back then, my score was 9, which showed that my intuition was guiding me well. Since then, the tool has evolved, particularly in the “Unique Authors” metric, which has increased from 50 to 100.
So I decided to really put my brain to work. Or rather, the Proof of Brain protocol. The result confirms excellent curation. Because I have limited HP, I can’t reach 150 authors, so I’ll likely never achieve a maximum score.
[Note: The score may differ from what you see now, as the tool is dynamic—it changes at any moment—and displays a rolling 7-day window. This screenshot was taken today at 11:50 a.m. in Lisbon.]
When comparing it to some curation groups, this tool makes that possible, so I confirmed that it was on par with the most respected groups.
It’s not about being the best, especially since curation groups have their own constraints. For example, they have to vote on good posts from users who delegate HP to them and support/vote for specific communities on a daily basis. This alone compromises their performance.
However, given that they have much more HP than I do, and that the curation of these groups is done by several people, in addition to having more tools that I don’t possess, I’m pleased to see my score compared to theirs. It’s just an added incentive.
To leave no room for doubt, I asked the AI for an evaluation; here’s the result.
It combines three metrics (B × D × S)^(1/3), ensuring balanced excellence across all metrics.
➡️ I'll start with Anti-Self
Under this metric, those who vote for themselves are penalized. In a protocol where users control the voting power, the complete absence of self-interest reinforces the credibility of the curation.
➡️ Breadth
Initially, the limit was 50; it was later raised to 100 authors as a benchmark for unique authors. Here, the more HP you have, the more unique authors you can vote for. The idea is to reach the maximum possible number to foster a vibrant ecosystem. Those with more HP have more voting power and value.
Every seven days, after rewards are paid out, the same author becomes a unique author again. In other words, if I vote for user “A” today, seven days later they become a unique author again.
It was here that I began to notice different behaviors from users I usually support. Perhaps they felt something was wrong. That, for some reason, I had forgotten them. But no. It was simply to avoid compromising the “unique author” status. Still, in some cases, I sent 1 BEE token (which is actually worth more than my vote). It was a way to compensate them without compromising my score.
If a user I follow posts 4 to 7 times a week, I don’t necessarily have to vote on all of them. I have a modest HP, and my votes are limited, so I have to share them with other “sole authors” to avoid compromising my performance.
➡️ Distribution
In the Hive ecosystem, the Gini Index applied to the distribution of voting weight measures the level of centralization or decentralization of curation (rewards).
In simple terms: it indicates whether voting power (and, consequently, the distribution of Hive/HBD rewards) is concentrated in the hands of a few “favorite” authors or whether it is being distributed fairly and evenly throughout the community.
My AI agent T-MAX did some research and helped me break this down practically within the Hive ecosystem:
Understanding the Gini Index on Hive
The Gini Index is a mathematical metric (ranging from 0 to 1) originally used in economics to measure income inequality. On Hive, the logic is the same:
A Gini Index close to 0 indicates the highest percentage (Perfect Equality). This means that votes are being distributed completely evenly. All active authors are receiving a proportional and balanced slice of the curation rewards “pie.”
A Gini close to 1 (Maximum Inequality): this means that a single author (or a very small group of whales/authors) is receiving virtually all the weight of the network’s votes, while the majority of content creators receive almost nothing.
The Impact of This on Curation
As mentioned earlier, Hive operates on a Proof of Brain system, where users utilize their Hive Power (HP) to vote on quality content. Analyzing the Gini Index in curation helps diagnose the health of the network in three key areas:
A) Identifying Cliques (Cabal Voting): A very high Gini in curation usually points to the existence of “cliques” or automatic voting bots (auto-votes), where large accounts always vote for the same authors, ignoring the rest of the platform.
B) Attractiveness to New Users: If the weight of votes is distributed more evenly (low Gini), new creators feel they have a real chance to monetize their content. If the Gini is too high, the platform appears “biased,” which drives away new talent.
C) Curator Returns: For voters (curators), a more even distribution shows that curation is organic. When the Gini is healthy, curators are actually seeking out good and diverse content to maximize their own curation earnings, rather than just following an automated feed.
There are exceptional cases, all involving those who organize contests and giveaways, where prizes are awarded based on votes that represent the rewards specified in the contest/giveaway rules. In these cases, the distribution and number of unique contributors are fixed; we cannot consider them Cabal Voting.
In other cases, I understand and accept the arguments of those who have been here longer, from the very beginning, when they concentrate the rewards within a closed circle, mostly using automated votes. They’ve dealt with so many schemes driven by greed, trusted so many people who let them down, and seen so much, that they play it safe and stick to what’s certain. It’s legitimate.
We are on a decentralized network. Freedom and free will must be untainted.
But don’t kill Utopia!
Many people have to change their tune when they go into the comments to say that HIVE needs new users. When, in reality, they aren’t contributing to that. Neither to new users nor to the many who have been around for a while, who invest (buy HIVE), and who end up powering down due to a lack of attention.
These days, I see so many people outraged by the DHF and the Top 20 Witnesses that they even forget that each one represents only 10% of the ecosystem’s inflation distribution system. I see very few people concerned with the larger share—the 65% of Content Rewards.
In my opinion, the focus right now shouldn’t be on past mistakes (DHF), but on building the future!
What do you want? Do you want to keep distributing your votes (rewards) among yourselves, driving away talented people (who buy HIVE) and preventing new users from joining?
You may want to change the name HIVE (I understand, I respect that, but I don’t agree), you may want to change the hbd_print_rate (I understand, I respect that, but I don’t agree), but if you want to change the Proof Of Brain Protocol, let me know 13 weeks in advance.
Have a good curation!
