Wow... thanks for that exceptional reply @geekgirl! Sorry for the late response, but I wanted to give this the attention it deserved.

No, I didn't think the 20% interest rate was necessarily sudden, as you said, it started with just 3%... and as I recall, it was started as an incentive for people to hold rather than always sell. From 3% to 20% in 15 months? That is a pretty fast rise, but that may just be a matter of perception and semantics.

Is 20% "reasonable?" Maybe it is, in the current market and economy. And ultimately, I'm not super concerned about it. As long as Hive keeps their eye on their OWN project, and doesn't resort of competitive thinking, and we start feeling inclined to match every project that starts offering a 30%, 40%, 50% APY for their vaporware. As you pointed out, we have done a great job of "stabilizing" HBD and we appear to have something quite solid there. I'm merely suggesting it would be a mistake to jeopardize that in pursuit of "big investors."

But why would they go for 20%, when they can make 100%, 200%, or higher holding bitcoin, ethereum or hive?

Why would they, indeed? Let's keep squarely in mind that a "stablecoin" is not the same as a regular cryptocurrency. As I recall, stablecoins originally came into being as relative "safe havens" that allowed active traders to "park their uninvested funds" without having to exit to fiat... until the next buy-in opportunity. As such, I see any comparison as somewhat comparing apples to oranges... similarly, in legacy markets, comparing high tech IPOs to 90-day T-bills isn't really meaningful.

One of the things I often have talked about in the past is actual use cases for Hive... and subsequently HBD.

Experience — and going back 30+ years here, LONG predating cryptos — tells me that any structure or organization that relies excessively on the "make money/earn returns" paradigm WITHOUT having a substantive and tangible idea/product/service supporting that quickly finds itself in deep trouble... because you're essentially trying to create something out of thin air, backed by nothing but promises and unicorn dust.

Why is Splinterlands doing so well? Because there's actually a substantial thing there, aside from the income opportunity. People enjoy playing the game, not just earning a return. And they have to "buy stuff" to be effective in the game.

Five years ago, I tried to float the idea of something like a peer-to-peer marketplace of goods and services, "denominated" in Steem Hive, but the "problem" being that a token whose value fluctuates all over creation is not a desirable pricing tool, so let's use a stablecoin, instead... like HBD. I like the idea of being able to trade all over the world in ONE currency, independently of fiat. Sure, there are those who argue you can do this with various card/payment services that handle crypto... but their shortcoming is that they ALL rely on ultimately transacting in fiat.

But I am digressing a bit. As long as HBD remains primarily a stablecoin (it's presumable purpose) rather than becoming "just another investment vehicle," then I'm sure all will be well and good! And it is a long-term proposition, for sure.

Ultimately, it takes a lot of commitment to build long term in an industry that's obsessed with chasing quick gains and "Wen Moon?" as its primary driving energy. As I see it, that's a tendency we have to downplay and eventually overcome, if the greater cryptosphere ever expects to be taken seriously on a larger scale. And a lot of that is a matter of psychology and perception, more than anything. The vast majority of the world is just not going to buy into something that looks like "investing in NOTHING, supported by NOTHING, in order to create new NOTHING, that you can then sell for... NOTHING?"

And yes, we can talk about Web 3.0, decentralization, consensus and other good things till we're blue in the face, but that consensus (as I see it, at least for now) doesn't extend very far beyond our own closed loops...

Thanks again for the excellent reply, and for taking the time!