In September of 2009 I had 68 subscribers. This month we crossed 4.6 million. That's 17 years of making content even though I'm shy and introverted. I filmed when I didn't feel ready, pushed through when videos flopped, and kept telling myself that at least one person, somewhere out there needs my next video. When you can connect what you do to serving others, you'll find more courage than you knew you had. Things started to click in 2014. I got married to Nina and I started reaching out to people for help. Without guidance, I struggled. With help, I started to succeed. So if you're in the early days right now, this is for you. Keep going. It's worth it. You're built to serve and someone out there desperately needs your next video too. But you don't have to do it alone. Come join us in Movement Makers if you've got a real business and you're trying to make a bigger impact with your content.

Take a look at this custom corrective shoe from our MENSURA line, specially crafted for a patient facing a complex foot and body condition that caused severe pain and made walking nearly impossible. With the right care and tailored support, restoring mobility and comfort is possible! 🩺👟 ​If you or your loved ones are dealing with a specific condition, deformity, or structural issue with your feet and body, don't hesitate to reach out. We are here to help you get back on your feet. 🤝 ​🌐 Online Examinations: For international or remote clients, examinations can be done online from the comfort of your home! ​📲 Text us on Viber or WhatsApp for more information or to book your examination appointment at: +389 75 225 722 💬 www.ortoshoes.org @Kim Ivy Busa @Evan Carmichael @Viktor Farkasovszki @Victor Steele @Ghyslain Monet @Stirbu Florentina @Celene Lees @Eva Kozlowski @Candy Caine @Thủy Lê @Milos Stankovic @Olanrewaju Praise @John Berfelo @Jackie Leffew @Paul Wood , @Williams Robert @Bohdan Pylypchuk @Ed Castro @Elisha S. @Matt Fox @Nancy Hopkins @Ahebwa Martin @Ankush Bharti @Bill Boone @Sarto Choi @Khalid Alraihan

I’ve been looking at our leaderboard lately, and something honestly bothers me. There are accounts that appear to be highly automated or behaving like bots, gaining massive amounts of points in a very short period of time. And the question I keep coming back to is: Why are they still allowed to compete on the leaderboard? If someone is genuinely participating, learning, supporting others, and contributing to the community — great. That’s exactly what a leaderboard should reward. But if someone is using automation, repetitive copy-paste comments, or other tactics simply to generate points, then what are we actually measuring? Engagement? Contribution? Or who can game the system most efficiently? And this isn't just about one person or one position on the leaderboard. It affects everyone who is participating honestly. Someone spending months consistently contributing can suddenly be overtaken by an account generating huge numbers of interactions in a few days. That can be incredibly frustrating. I’m not saying every highly active account is a bot. High activity alone isn't proof of anything. But when the patterns are obvious enough to raise questions, shouldn't they at least be reviewed? If #BelieveNation is about believing in yourself, supporting others, and building meaningful connections, then the quality of contribution should matter more than the quantity of points. So I want to ask the community: Should leaderboard activity be reviewed when an account shows suspiciously high activity or repetitive behavior? And more importantly: Are we comfortable continuing to reward behavior that may be gaming the system? I’d genuinely like to hear what everyone thinks. 💭

A few people in our community @Chau Anh Nguyen, @Adrian-Mihai Aprofirei, @Sendy Send, @Cait Marshall, @Tyler Hoang, @Danatar Rozyyev, @Éva T., @Christopher Daka, @Anduu ANnd, @Akifumi Niijima, @Peter Han have a goal of starting their own business, and we’d love to hear from those who have been there. What advice would you give them?

Everyone says they "prioritize." Almost nobody can explain their actual method when you ask. So let's get specific. Here's mine: I run everything through one filter: does this move the needle, or does it just feel productive? Practically, that means: 1. Deadline-bound work goes first — not because it's most important, but because time makes the decision for me. No negotiation. 2. Anything that unblocks other work jumps the queue — a task that's holding up three other tasks outranks a task that's just... a task. 3. "Feels urgent" gets questioned, not obeyed — urgency and importance are different animals. A notification pinging me is not the same as a decision that actually matters. 4. If two things are equally important, I pick the one I'm avoiding — resistance is usually a signal, not a coincidence. That's it. No fancy matrix, no app with seventeen tags. Just those four filters, run in order, every time something competes for my attention. Here's what I'm actually curious about: Everyone's priority system reveals what they secretly value — whoever picks "urgent" every time is optimizing for peace of mind. Whoever picks "important" every time is optimizing for the long game. Neither is wrong. But most people have never noticed which one they default to. So, genuinely: 1. What's your actual method — Eisenhower matrix, gut feeling, deadlines only, something else entirely? 2. When two things compete, what's the tiebreaker you reach for? 3. Be honest — do you prioritize what's important, or what's loud? 👇