It's pretty simple really. If you want to remove stakeholder votes from rewards, then remove stakeholders as the ones paying the rewards from inflation. Create a new system with rewards paid for and controlled

I'm perplexed that none of these low value make-up nor elementary school level crafts trending posts don't get downvoted to remove at least half of their earnings. They increased exponentially to spam

No, that's not right. The downvotes were always about rewards. The "flag" thing and listed types of abuse thing was added in the UI by the former owner of the web site, with no community discussion

My answer to everyone who talking about how bad it is, how it is doomed, etc. is: What are you doing here? If the answer is milking rewards, or looking to flip a 'doomed' token to a greater fool, then

Fakespace with Diem won't reward you for posting, at least not to anywhere near the degree that happens here. That's the difference. You want stakeholders to pay you, stakeholders are going to decide if

Healthy markets function by consumers supporting things they like. This isn't that sort of market. You're getting influence over inflation that doesn't come from your own stake, it comes from all stake.

Probably more than once, but that's not really the point.

And that was based on how you interpreted either the white or blue paper Not especially, but I might have referenced it. Most of what I say is based on my own thought process. If I didn't think the white

I didn't name it "proof of brain" and the person who did is long gone, after doing a lot of damage before he left. It's a nice idea, but the reality is that it is a stake-powered reward system.

Hey, rules of the game say it's your stake and you can do whatever you want with it right? Exactly. Post whatever you like. If you want rewards for it, post stuff where rewarding it is supported by most

No name calling here but I don't support complaining about rewards and how people vote being rewarded. If you're going to do that and I see it, I'm likely to downvote it.

If we need more funds to stabilize a peg, then a stabilizer proposal (not necessarily the current one) could hold the funds and use it to trade instead of sending them back. It could be managed by multisig

HBD is unlike most convertible bonds in that: 1) there is no ability to hold it to maturity and receive payment in anything other than 'equity' (native HIVE token in this case), and 2) the conversion ratio

Also when there is a large imbalance, another way to create more is to convert HIVE to HBD (w/5% fee)

That's why ice cream comes in more than one flavor.

Removing proposals #116 and #117 in the next hardfork Maybe not that important but I do think it would be reasonable to cap the length of proposals which were created before there was a fee for long proposals.

The HBD payouts switch to HIVE when the market cap ratio reaches 9% or 10%, I don't recall which. However, the increase in HIVE price reduces the ratio, now about 3%, so this isn't even close to happening,

Honestly if you don't have confidence in USD to survive your holding period, I wouldn't buy it. Right now it is intended to track USD. Yes that could change, but if you don't trust USD you shouldn't trust

It would probably be overvalued at first and take a little while to decline. We'd destroy a lot of HIVE creating HBD to dump on to the market to push its value down to the new value of USD, which could

I think its actually quite stable at this point. Most of what you see now are small fluctuations due to limited liquidity and also some fake price fluctuations due to weird price reporting and suspicious