I'm not sure why but coinmarketcap doesn't even seem to report the HBD price correctly. For example, right now it reports it as $1.07, but the only exchange listed there is Upbit, which CMC reports at

Assuming you are referring to the burn posts, it makes no difference. The HBD is created during the payout process by destroying the HIVE that would otherwise power up, and if it goes to null it still

It's actually the median of the 21 active witnesses (top 20 plus one dynamic backup). That's why the rate has been fluctuating between 19% and 20%. The top 20 are exactly divided between 20% and 19% as

I don't understand the connection with #1. I don't support yield farming. That's just staking with extra spam. So I agree it is a downgrade. I don't agree whatsoever with #2 and #3 being a downgrade. These

To be clear, this wouldn't address your issue of adequately paying creators, which would still need to come from consumers via advertising or subscriptions at level 2. It would be more of seed funding,

"Unsustainable" is not really the right standard. Can an extra 6% or so inflation with little to show for it be "sustained"? Probably, it's not earth-shattering. But it's also not really

Where would the money come from? Apart from direct L2 revenue such as advertising or end user paymium features, the money could come from a DHF proposal that is supported by stakeholders. The level of

I don't actually see that. If you look at the Hive Sucre businesses, at least some of them just sit in the HBD they receive without selling it. I'd guess they'll sell it eventually but they don't appear

The sell pressure comes from the payouts. If you pay out HIVE and people want to cash out their rewards, it's sell pressure. If you pay out HBD and people want to cash out their rewards, it's sell pressure

OK, I'm sure you must be correct and I misremembered something about the change that was made. In any case, I correctly explained the reason for the current mechanism. It creates an equilibrium of sufficiently

For people with smaller stakes, who don't use or IIRC don't even see the vote power slider, voting more than 10x per day would result in a lot of 'dead votes'. I'd suggest making the change to blockchain

It originally worked the way you describe. The reason for the change is described in a very old post from early in the Steem era (perhaps someone can find it). The idea is that if you vote 20 times per

I commented here a few months ago I don't actually think it is a big deal either way.

Your code doesn't need to follow the same template, though it could. There is actually added value if there are different algorithms competing to trade toward the peg. I'd vote for a small user, as long

Not that I'm aware of. However, it's remaining stable even with the reduced stabilizer volume. Under more volatile market conditions, that might not be true, and having more stabilizers might become helpful.

The 'debt' is not a dollar, it's conditional. The 'rules written into the protocol' as you call it, are in fact the rules.

As background, I've been voting for a lower rate for a long time, maybe a year. However, I don't think the argument is compelling. We should see what happens when demand for savings outstrips the liquid

It doesn't really find out. As with many things the counterfactual is unobservable. For example, if high interest rate is maintained and Hive does well, would it have done as well or better even with a

HBD can't make Hive insolvent. It's mathematically impossible. Agree on the interest rate not being a promise. I don't know where anyone gets that from.

Even setting aside the stabilizer, overall inflation is relative to the total supply, but liquid HIVE gets none of it. So it is possible for HP to keep up with or even ahead of inflation depending on the