Hi, I’d also like to present one of my models in this context. I haven’t been doing this for very long, and it’s a niche product;
It doesn’t have a single download, but it has four prints. I therefore believe that direct prints from the app aren’t counted as downloads.
yes prints are not downloads… but for the counting of the points a print counts as two downloads
The “no entry” sign on the thread is not documented in the FAQ. Who assigns it, and what threshold needs to be crossed for it to be shown?
Thank you both very much for the data; I’ll take a closer look at it later. But for now, thank you very much. Every bit of information helps to further my understanding of the matter. 
From a creator point of view, I would separate two different questions here.
The first is whether MakerWorld is intentionally reducing the reward pool. So far I don’t see enough evidence to conclude that.
The second question, however, is very real: how can creators evaluate model performance when visible downloads, Print Profile downloads, successful prints and rewarded activity are processed differently?
This matters especially for creators producing functional and engineering-oriented models, where a single model may require many hours of CAD, prototyping, printing and testing.
We need to know whether a model is genuinely performing poorly or whether part of its traffic is simply being filtered by the platform.
MakerWorld doesn’t need to reveal the fraud-detection logic.
But showing creators a “qualified activity” metric alongside raw activity would be a major improvement.
It would also make it much easier to understand changes in point generation over time without immediately assuming that the reward system is being reduced.
Bamub has introduced a filter that they themselves describe as “malicious download data.” This filter blocks between 10% and 50% of all downloads - though it does not affect prints. As a result, a model may end up showing more prints than downloads, which is obviously not very plausible.
Although the choice of wording can be debated, the outcome for creators is clear: a significant reduction in the reward pool. Well, that’s verifiable - that can be measured and observed, and has even been confirmed by Bambu. A devaluation of designer’s work.
Of course, that’s intentional, since Bambu installed the filter and maintains it. As I said, we can debate the choice of words, but that doesn’t change the outcome of the situation. From a designer’s perspective, it’s a reduction in rewards - the payment for his/her work.
As I said, in this case, it isn’t just an assumption - see Bambu’s statement, which confirms this themselves, even if, and I’m repeating myself here, one could debate the choice of words. However, words don’t change the outcome.
In that context, it’s also worth noting that this isn’t the first time something like this has happened. I’m not sure how long you’ve been here, but MakerWorld does have a history of gradually phasing out its points system. If it were happening for the first time, most people would probably just see it as a simple glitch. But since issues like this have been appearing more and more often over the years - and combined with the lack of transparency - people are starting to look a bit more closely.
Of course, Bambu can customize the system, but it should be communicated openly. 
Otherwise, thank you very much for your comment, too. Maybe Bambu will take that into account, though I don’t really think so.
Argh! it’s emoji the thread title, not a forum mod note
I am an idiot!
I got caught this way once before. Spent hours debugging why a user’s avatar was showing an error, and realized the user had uploaded the error image on purpose.
EDIT Just replace me with DeepSeek already and wheel me into the care home.