I'm not taking it personally but I'm questioning your agenda at this point.

If projects need help, I know mine do and I keep spending countless hive at the bottom of the market trying to keep it alive while I know others are suffering as well, they need to come up with ways to legitimately get them. Not by abusing curation, the one thing that if kept fair and working makes this platform stand out from web2 and all other chains, if not, we may as well just be proof of stake with content just being there for no reason.

I offered an olive branch to rising star, they have an active community, they can set a default beneficiary on posts to support the project, we can provide some voting power to CURATE posts and they may earn some legitimate addtional rewards that way that the community decides if they want to give it to them or not. Posts should be curated whether they GIVE beneficiaries or not.

You're defending projects that go against this principle, projects that only upvote people who delegate to them, projects that only upvote people who give them beneficiaries, etc, while ignoring the content, the users and their social activity, etc.

These bubbles create a closed circle where new users with no stake don't get curated, similar to vote trading, similar to hsbi/eds, etc. Yes those are all problems, come up with how we can combat them than attempting to use them as an excuse to accuse me of abusing the reward pool while ignoring others because I'm scared or have some interest in letting them abuse the reward pool.

I gave you one solution, now you come up with one, this circling around the same garbage just to try and allow curation misuse is getting old and I won't entertain it any longer.