My question is how they will choose complex models over simple ones, will it be done manually by them? Will the designer self-certify their own model? Will it be something related to the exclusive program?
Info: Boosting What Matters: Rewarding Engineering and Design Effort
I don’t think they do anything manually… it will probably be based on some sort of algorithm. This is what people have predicted becoming reality, instead of just moderating Makerworld they are going to slowly nerf the point system to stop all the cheaters.
Since a big portion of the cheaters are just re-uploading other people’s models and pictures this will encourage them to be more selective in what they steal 
its really hard to tell , something might looks simple but still take weeks to design
in fact , users can’t really tell the difference
I also think that it will be some kind of automatic system (for counting plates, objects, polygons, etc.).
Now, thinking about how it can affect my designs, I’m a little bit concerned.
Most of my designs are OpenSCAD designs, which usually produce rather simple models, but the effort required to create these scripts is pretty high. For instance, for my last design, I even had to create a webpage to edit the SVGs, but the result was just a lightbox.
I just hope that @BambuLab takes into consideration the time it takes to design OpenSCAD scripts (I have probably spent more than 60 hours on this design and web work).
At the same time, I also think that they should review how the downloads of OpenSCAD scripts are counted. Most of the users who use my scripts do so several times with different parameters. Maybe they should count a download only if more than 2 or 3 days have passed since the last download.
Hello everyone,
I would like to share some thoughts on the new Boost system that MakerWorld is introducing. While I appreciate the efforts to improve the platform and reward more complex projects, I believe it is essential to consider some aspects that could negatively impact our community of creators.
In conclusion, I hope that MakerWorld can listen to the community’s concerns and work towards a reward system that is fair and inclusive. Creativity in all its forms deserves to be recognized and valued.
Thank you for reading, and I look forward to your thoughts!
Best regards,
In my opinion this is just an excuse to limit the number of boosts you may receive. In the longer term, boosting system will probably be removed.
EDIT: I will continue to boost models that are useful for me and they deserve a boost in my subjective opinion, no matter if they are complicated or not. If I get less tokens for this, so be it.
I have concerns about it as the vast majority of mine are remixes of functional simple designs which are useful but not especially exciting. I do quite well out of boosts and whilst I am certainly not doing this for points (I only upload things I myself need and am using) it is rather nice to get the points!
Without boosts I’d probably drop from a voucher every 6 days to double to triple that I reckon. Actually the thing that pleases me more than the points is the thought that someone wants to boost a model as they have also found it useful. It’s a nice thing frankly. When I boost myself I do it based on what I’ve found useful. Some of those boosts have been for super simple things that have actually really helped me. A pipe clip for example. Simple design, cheap to buy elsewhere but when you need one and you don’t have one the ability to download one is great and that designer deserves recognition as they may have saved me a trip to the DIY store!
I used my boosts very often for models, which have less or none boosts yet and for designers, which do not have thousands of followers. Even a newbie designer could create something, which is helpful for me or just funny and I do say “Thank you” by boosting it. It seems like, I should only boost the models which thousands of downloads in future…
For me it looks like Makerworld do not want want to draw attention to complex models, they do want to push models with a long printing time and a large filament usage. In best case in addition to some maker supply parts. Makes sence from business perspective, but than, please name it this way! Say “boosting of models with >200g filament usage are preferred”.
But do not spread something like “complex models requires more development time!”. This might be right, but it isn’t always the case. For example I have created an air outlet for our air condition. It looks like a simple piece, around 10g filament and small printing time. But it required over 20 iteration, to find the best result (tight fit for outdoor use without screws, filament selection, outer finish…). On the other hand I created a monitor webcam holder which requires over 300g filament and hours of printing time, looks complex due to the twists in it, but at the end, it was designed in 2 hours and works at the first print.
I also would prefer going back to the original rules, but more moderated. Why not limiting the boosts to people who have printed it? This would reduce the cheating a lot…
2 Problems: philosophical underlying problems and (near)surface issues…
Ever get the feeling where a person (or a company or a government) has string of problems and deals with them in the wrong way?
Hanlon’s razor would ascribe that to incompetence. However this looks like people following incentives in a complex system. In addition to that, we see different philosophies in play, which in this case created a response that should seem “alien” for people with different core values and philosophies.
The system before change had IMHO just one fatal flaw: Point farmers. This was acknowledged by Bambu themselves initially and was repeated in the blog post as one of 2 reasons for the change. This would be easy to combat if Bambu had listened to people pointing out accounts playing the game of “boost-for-boost” or using other methods to gather boosts that fell outside of guidelines. The introduction of “Community” tab allowed Bambu to have such accounts handed on a plater with all the reporting (just check one of the threads regarding it: Makerworld "community" tab was a big mistake) Even without boosts in picture, people report point farmers that use different way to gather points in less-than-honest ways: Point fraud, with fake profiles and repeated photos - that too will be ignored and later on there will be a change to point system quoting the issues pointed out by people, but again - taking wrong approach to combat the issues rather than listen to good suggestions by users.
What additionally grinds my gears here is the evil “nudge” to boost models that are “complex”:
The models you choose to boost will now directly impact how many Boost Tokens you receive.
An honest person should have no fear of boosting “simple” models and should have full control over the boost tokens they receive.
This is the issue of the different underlying philosophy: instead of combating actual malicious use, “the system” punishes valid uses that are not “aligned with our original mission”.
However, skipping philosophical “woo-woo” the surface issues are still bad:
This is quite simple: the definition of “complex model” that’s worthy of boosting aligns with exclusive model definition. This has 2 pronged results: people boosting exclusive models will get more boosts and creators having exclusive models will be encouraged to do more exclusive models.
(this also may boost filament, consumable spare parts and maker’s supply sales 
)
Also, to repeat what I said in “philosophical wall of text” simply: for “us” it would be better and make more sense to police cheating/point farming. For “them” their way makes more sense, but is alien to “us”.
When Makerworld reduced their original point reward system and introduced boosts, I initially saw it as a reduction in overall rewards. However, in hindsight, the boost system has been fantastic. A majority of my points now come from boosts, and it has fostered a closer connection with our users. Messaging boosters to thank them has led to many meaningful conversations.
With this latest change to the boost system, I find myself skeptical again, worried about how it might impact design incentives. That said, I fully support Makerworld’s efforts to protect itself from scammers and hope these measures ensure the platform continues to run smoothly for years to come.
it will be the same one day as printables… over time the points we gain will become less and less, this is not something that will go on forever
dont forget as well that now days… new users are becoming more popular then users that have 1000 or more followers. we keep seeing users with 100 followers to 500 getting models popular. I believe makerworld wants to become more popular and the only way it can become more popular and get more people to talk about their printers is by having new users gain points or money $$ so they can then tell their friends and so on. wich sucks for users like me that have tried to gain more attention by doing 100ths of models
I agree with this and we have to remember the Boost system is less than a year old so some adjustments are going to be needed. High quality and complex models drive more printer/filament/hardware sales so it shouldn’t be surprising that Bambu wants to incentivize creating more of them by increasing rewards. Every model still earns points for prints and downloads no matter how simple or complex, the boost system is an additional knob that Bambu can control to guide the community in the direction they want which is what I think we’re seeing.
In my opinion the new boost system is really unfair.
Most people I know - myself too - bought their 3D printer to create useful things for their everyday life!
Often this are simple models, but they are useful and they deserve the boost as well.
What should I Do with a massive wind tunnel?
Of course these complex models are awesome.
But I don’t think it is fair that Bambu decides which models deserve the boost more.
I don’t really see how they can determine the time and effort required to create the models. This will incentivize the designers to create models that “look” like they required more effort with more and 3rd party parts, assembly by the user instead of print-in-place, more filament, and more build plates.
And will the boosters change their behavior? What kind-of feedback will they get? “I’m sorry we are only giving you one boost this week because you gave your boosts out to lame models.”
Well, for once the pendulum swings my way. 
I’ve got a “complex” model I plan to post today just in time for the new rules. Don’t know it will be deemed “complex” though or how we will know which models count as complex.
I definitely see the concerns people have that tend to work up smaller pieces. I also see Bambu wanting people to use more filament and make things that get noticed to generate more interest.
It’s definitely imperfect but it’s an imperfect world I guess. But from this corner of it, maybe I can catch a good break?
(Opening statement edited because hurt either Maker Worlds feelings or someone is too soft to hear it)
Thanks for once again showing me that I shouldn’t share here. I get one damn card every 2 weeks and you review 2/3 of them, now you take away any incentive that others had to “boost” my little models, which make up for the majority of my points.
(Sentence edited because hurt someone’s feelings). Every time you want to punish abusers you end up punishing legit folks as well, and harshly.
I spend a fortune in real money for filament and parts. No more.
So @MakerWorld, a sincere, heartfelt finger held up proudly in your direction. (Edited because was too graphic, but basically invited a certain entity to vigorously choose to attempt reproduction with themselves).
Go ahead and ban me.
I’m a bit frustrated with this change, especially this part:
"Boosts often go to simpler models – A significant portion of Boost Tokens have been awarded to less complex designs, which doesn't align with our goal of incentivizing sophisticated creations and outstanding efforts."
Yes, I primarily make 2D keychains, but guess what? People love them. I’ve received countless compliments, and some have even told me they bought a printer with AMS just so they could print my designs for themselves or their kids. My models may not be overly complex, but clearly, they resonate with users.
Now, Bambu is essentially saying that people shouldn’t like or boost these designs because they’re “simple.” But why should Bambu dictate what people can or can’t enjoy printing? It just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
EDIT: Just to add another point—Bambu might be missing the mark on what users actually enjoy doing with their printers. Sure, highly intricate models like the DeLorean and AMS Mech are absolutely incredible, and they deserve to be showcased as examples of what’s possible at the high end of 3D printing. But the reality is that many users probably don’t have the time, patience, or desire to print and assemble these complex designs.
That’s where so-called “simple” models shine. They may not be flashy, but they’re accessible, practical, and still a fantastic demonstration of what 3D printing can achieve. People love them because they’re quick, easy to produce, and immediately rewarding—sometimes, that’s exactly what makes a design great.
A boost is worth up to $1 USD, that’s real money that comes out of Bambu Lab’s budget and it seems clear from the messaging that they’re not happy with where most of it is going at the moment so they’re trying to restructure the program.
All that said we still don’t even know what these new requirements are, perhaps they’re looking for high quality models with a high conversion rate of boosts/prints or other metrics it might not be as strict as people are making it out to be. We also haven’t had a chance to try the changes so everything is speculation at the moment but it’s clear Bambu Labs is looking at the data and has a goal for what they want.