Reporte de curación de Chess Brothers para el día 01/09/2026
PROYECTO CHESS BROTHERS es una iniciativa para apoyar la producción de contenidos en la cadena de bloques que tengan con una amplia variedad de temas, especialmente aquellos relacionados con el ajedrez y la actividad física.
Para nuestro reporte del día 01/09/2026, las siguientes publicaciones han sido revisadas por nuestros curadores, siguiendo los criterios de curación de la comunidad, y han recibido el soporte de nuestro proyecto respectivamente. Te recomendamos echarles un vistazo.
♙ Te exhortamos a usar nuestra etiqueta #chessbrothers en tus publicaciones para que así tengas mejor visibilidad durante nuestro proceso de curación.
♙♙ También te invitamos a unirte a nuestro servidor de Discord para que compartas con nosotros, participes en otras actividades y también promociones tus producciones.
♙♙♙ Considera unirte a nuestro trail de curación para que trabajemos en equipo y recibas recompensas automáticamente.
♘♙ Si quieres aprender más sobre nosotros, visita este post así como también nuestro sitio oficial en la red www.chessbrothers.com
Si quieres obtener ganancias con tu delegacion de HP y apoyar a nuestro proyecto, te invitamos a unirte al plan Master Investor. Aquí puedes aprender cómo hacerlo.
Agradecemos mucho a @alexbit, @amatorrs, @antonydossantos, @bambukah, @biologistbrito, @caelum1infernum, @cryptoph0823, @eniolw, @geneleori, @hirohurl, @invmswallet2, @jrevilla, @leogomez1414, @mathowl, @negentropi, @odic3o1, @psicologopoeta, @rafaelaquino, @rmm32, @rosmarly, @rulirecomienda, @sawko, @schamangerbert, @stayoutoftherz, @suezoe, @svanbo, @tony1294, @vjap55, @yeral-diaz por su apoyo a Chess Brothers mediante su delegación de HP.
@ChessBrothersPro
Notas: La imagen de portada y el logo de Chess Brothers son propiedad de Chess Brothers.
Why the downvote, @rutablockchain?
Hi @stayoutoftherz
I've been downvoting the accounts @chessbrotherspro and @entropia for months for the exact same reason. Although in my opinion there could be more reasons—such as the fact that she self-votes over 13% of the time (when she could be supporting other authors) and that she doesn't create original content more than twice a year—the main reason for the downvote is that she posts more than one curation report per day.
I already discussed this with the owner of the accounts, @eniolw. In the days that followed, he seemed to have understood; however, some time later he went right back to the same spamming practice.
He seems to feel entitled to his quota of automated votes. If he misses a day without publishing a report, he posts it later because, to him, they are cumulative. Combining two or three reports into one? Never—he wouldn't waste his vote quota.
Since his rewards have increased and he continues with the same habit, we included @rutablockchain. Now I'm receiving retaliatory downvotes from @mathowl, who also believes he's entitled to extra curation rewards from curation posts.
In short: although I don't agree with curation reports because they bring no value, I realize that the majority on Hive has normalized them. But going from that to accepting more than one a day seems like clear abuse to me. In fact, when he only posts one a day, I don't downvote him.
This text was translated from Spanish...
But the self vote from that account is just under 1c, do you really think that warrants a downvote of >10fold that value? This is quite overdoing.
Of course you can downvote whatever you want, but as you know, there is no clear rule forbidding self votes. Downvotes should be restricted to spam, plagiarism, AI slop or criminal content.
And "having no value" to justify a dv from an account that isn´t even active like @rutablockchain seems also not very logic.
Perhaps it wasn't clear due to the translation.
The reason for the downvote is the spam—publishing reports two or three times a day. Do you support this habit?
But there are no 2-3 reports per day.
When someone posts once a day, I don't downvote them
But check the last posts, I see only one per day, so why do you still downvote?
Hi, @stayputoftherz.
I don't know what this guy is talking about, but he has never directly reached out to me. His opening comment is a lie. If he wanted to talk, he knows how to contact us on-chain or via Discord.
Instead, he started downvoting our project without justification. When we tagged him to ask why, he responded with defamatory comments. Since this is the first time he's trying to "make a case", I'm addressing his claims directly now:
Look at that, by using "he", he pretends Chess Brothers is a solo project, proving he hasn't bothered to learn how we operate.
His claim that posting more than once a day is "spamming" misunderstands Hive. Bandwidth is governed by Resource Credits, so by his logic, commenting multiple times a day would also be spam. Who thinks that way?
The truth is daily curation reports are our 6-year project tradition. We average SEVEN posts a week, and minor overlaps only happen due to circumstances beyond our control, like local infrastructure issues in Venezuela. Curation trails rarely upvote delayed posts anyway, and what's up with that provided you're actually averaging the same 7 posts per week?
Meanwhile, he targets smaller accounts while ignoring massive users who post multiple times daily. That is a clear double standard.
@rutablockchain has never contacted us either, making it seem like he's acting unilaterally. Acting in good faith means communicating, not launching downvote campaigns.
That's ironic, since he's hidden behind "downvoting is a feature" to justify his actions, but complains when downvoted back. It makes you wonder, doesn't it?
As said previously, a minor delay shifting a timestamp doesn't change our net volume of seven reports a week. Why doesn't he persecute the big projects that also keep a seven post per week ratio?
This is false; he has downvoted consecutive posts regardless of timing. This is easily demonstrable.
The real abuse here is spreading defamatory claims and using stake to damage a legitimate, long-standing community project like ours.
BTW, I could elaborate much further with more arguments and evidence, but I kept it brief to keep the discussion manageable.
I brought this up on the Hivewatchers Discord—I don't think I'm mistaken—but either way, you're here now. I'd like to put this issue behind us...
Do you commit to waiting at least 24 hours between curation reports? If so, we will remove the downvotes.
Greetings. As can be seen in our Hive history and on my personal blog, I also represent the Chess Brothers project. @Eniolw is not the sole owner of the project or the account; it is a shared responsibility that we have solidly maintained over time.
Regarding Hive Watchers, I am not entirely sure what you are referring to. That project is not currently operational, and if you are referring to a past issue, they took only a few minutes to process our appeal, as what they raised had absolutely nothing to do with what you mentioned.
As for your demand, what is the reason or justification behind it? This social network was not built for what you are demanding. We have provided clear arguments and explanations, but your unwillingness to address them or reflect on the matter naturally makes us question your true motivations.
Whether consciously or unconsciously, you are infringing upon our right to use our blog, in which we have invested stake on this blockchain. We have not broken any terms of service or engaged in standard bad practices for which downvotes are typically reserved, as @stayoutoftherz already explained to you.
If you are acting in good faith, you should reflect on why you feel entitled to impose a standard that does NOT exist on this blockchain/social network, and whether this approach truly contributes to the growth of the community. I hope you will put an end to these hostilities.
Why is it so hard to post just one report a day, like other projects do?
I am acting in good faith. I want to put this drama behind us, but for some reason, you don't want to compromise at all.
Another option is for you to create original content instead of repeating a template. That way, I'd have no problem with you posting multiple times a day. That is the fundamental principle this network was built on: "Proof of Brain".
Let’s see… why is this so difficult? Because you keep dodging what @eniolw and I already explained. That’s not a real debate; you sound like a prosecutor dismissing solid evidence just to say, "They’re guilty because I say so."
Furthermore, If this were in good faith, you would have talked to us instead of defaulting to months of downvotes and accusations. Where is the benefit of the doubt? You ignore other accounts that post multiple times a day, yet you target us—even though we normally publish just once daily.
Besides, your core idea is actually good and we’ll take it into account, though it's a pity you didn't present it sooner. Our curation reports are a five-year blog tradition, and we won't drop them on a whim. Substance matters more than formalities, and "one post a day" isn't even an official platform rule.
Life in our country changes constantly, as you well know. We aim for one daily report, but if there's a delay, we still maintain an average of seven posts a week—meaning there is no abuse. Why police this so strictly while ignoring powerful users doing the exact same thing?
We cannot commit to your rigid demands because circumstances change overnight, and we won’t give up our right to use our blog legitimately. That aside, thanks for the suggestion; we'll consider it alongside our ongoing original content, like our conversation club reports and shorts.
You are the only ones posting repeated templates (copy-paste) multiple times a day, along with another one out there that I also downvote. I haven't seen those accounts you're referring to. As for the other ones I've seen posting several times a day, it isn't duplicate content.
I know that—I've been seeing your posts for years—but while doing curation this year, I came across 3 posts on the same day, and that alarmed me.
Daily curation reports that lack original content are spam—most of the ones on Hive are—but they have been normalized, and I'm not going to swim against the stream, even if this practice is unethical. However, accepting more than one a day with such high rewards is just excessive farming. Disagreement over rewards has always existed on Hive, and that is precisely what we are applying here.
I can hold you to this then. I hope to see original content and not copy-paste. You could explain why you voted for each post, what you found interesting about it, so creators can learn creation criteria and improve their posts. That would actually bring real value to the community.
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.
Sure, @chessbrotherspro is at the top with 13.16% over the last 7 days. But if you actually look at the rest of that chart, it's pretty clear you're just cherry-picking.
That same screenshot shows a massive 86.84% of our voting power went straight to the community.
Check the pie chart again. It's super spread out, showing we're backing dozens of independent authors. If a project were just trying to "milk" rewards or whatever you're hinting at, it wouldn't be giving away nearly 90% of its stake to other creators.
We've been doing this for over 6 years now. Allocating a tiny slice of VP to keep the lights on is pretty standard stuff on Hive. It's even less of a big deal for small projects like ours where nobody is getting rich off a 13% self-vote anyway. You're kind of missing the big picture here.
You're also overlooking that using a fraction of our VP for maintenance while channeling almost all of it into the chess community isn't abuse. It's just how you keep a project running long-term.
Honestly, far from proving any "farming", your screenshot basically just proves we're active and community-first. Appreciate you posting the receipts for us!
@stayputoftherz