I would take a better-pegged HBD over a blockchain conversion to "$1 worth of Hive" any day. If adding an HBD->Hive conversion fee helps create a better peg (not just on the upside but on the downside also), then great - I think that is far more valuable.

The challenge has been that we haven't had a way to create a better peg on the downside. You have created one way with the HBD stabilizer, so the peg works much better now, but it has also introduced a reliance on a single-person-controlled feature, so this puts a limit on adoption. (How would we go to our friends and tell them to move their money from the bank to HBD if we aren't confident that the peg can hold?)

Very often, a network effect creates things that would be very difficult to achieve without it. So companies are willing to invest funds in subsidizing adoption in order to achieve a network effect, and after a certain level of adoption they remove the subsidy. In the case of Hive, will we see a stable peg that maintains itself (with little regulation mechanics required) if there are hundreds of millions of HBD in existence? If we think this is a pathway to creating a stable peg, then things like a 20% APR and a blockchain subsidy on HBD->Hive conversions can help adoption by creating both incentive and security.

On the other hand, if we see a way to maintain the peg on the downside even at current levels of HBD in existence, that would be terrific. As long as it doesn't create an increasing reliance on a centralized function that maintains the peg. If the decentralized assurance (the conversion subsidy) is removed and only the centralized left in place, I'm not sure we have made progress. But if we have a way to decentralize the stabilizer, that would be a much better thing than subsidizing the conversion.