I appreciate your detailed response and I think this discussion is valuable. A few points to clarify from my side:

On calling projects “worthless” or “cool”: That wording dismisses the real work people have put in. Even if outcomes weren’t perfect, it minimizes genuine effort from contributors who invested time and skill. Constructive critique is important, but language matters when people are giving their best for the ecosystem.

On visibility and measurement: The problem is not only project quality but visibility. Many DHF and VP initiatives were never properly followed up or communicated through Hive’s main channels. Without visibility, there’s no way to measure engagement, retention, or ROI fairly. You cannot track what people never see.

On conversion and ROI: I agree that results should be measurable, but meaningful conversion doesn’t start at the transaction level. It starts with awareness, perception, and trust. Inspiration is the first step in any conversion funnel. Projects like the borehole initiative create that emotional connection, but the lack of follow-up content means that initial attention never matures into measurable outcomes.

On regional value and inclusivity: The rates I accepted for VP work compared to my normal ones already show that I’m not motivated purely by money. Hive’s identity is built on decentralization and global opportunity. Reducing human contribution to purchasing power goes against that core idea. Hive’s strength lies in its diversity, and that should never be treated as an inefficiency.

On future measurement: Visibility and communication are prerequisites for data. Until Hive improves how it broadcasts and documents its funded projects, none of the upcoming initiatives will be measurable either. Visibility creates understanding, understanding creates engagement, and engagement leads to measurable growth. That first step is still missing, and that’s where the focus should be IMO, not "cooler" project in your eyes.