Well I have quite a bit more to say on this topic but it's very easy to see that I'm overly triggered and sensitive to the issue.

I guess my final thought points to something you said earlier.

Yes, the USD loses a bit of value day by day. However, stablecoins are designed to reflect that - you have to count in that 1 HBD in 2025 would worth less than today, just like you do so with fiat.

It's statements like this that are extremely frustrating and further add to this theme of forging an opinion without really knowing how these things work. We are debating as to whether 20% yield is sustainable to HIVE. Of course it would matter if the debt we owe back is less over time. But instead you completely disregard this fact and compare HBD to non-algo stable coins as if they are the same thing. They are not.

• Coins like USDT are backed by dollars in a bank.
• HBD is backed by Hive.

If the value of USD gets diluted by inflation, the collateral of dollars in the bank stays exactly the same. But in that exact same situation the value of Hive goes up in terms of dollars because USD has gone down. Meaning that the value of the collateral (HIVE) goes up on an algo stable-coin, and we will in turn owe back less money if and when HBD gets converted back into Hive. This makes HBD more sustainable over long periods of time.

The comparison of HBD to bank-backed coins is a complete false equivalence and totally confuses the issue. It has absolutely no bearing on whether 20% is sustainable or not, and yet you presented it as though it was some kind of infallible argument. This is simply just not how any of this works. The entire system is extremely counter-intuitive and you can't just wing it and hope you get it right.