With all due respect, the algorithms, including how DHF budgets payouts to develop the ecosystem, have always been public, and if you didn't understand how it could result in a larger supply of HIVE, that's

Originally the exchanges that listed STEEM (HIVE predecessor) all listed SBD (HBD predecessor) as well. It was much easier to trade in and out of the stable token.

Savings is about 80% of the total (not including HBD stored in the DHF fund, which is excluded from most of the calculations).

Why is it an injustice? Yes people have been building and working for years, but that hasn't been very successful. If some new blood comes along and changes the trajectory for the better, why should the

Why does the protocol want this [6% base inflation] to begin with? The chain was originally conceived as an intentionally inflationary economy rather than a fixed (or very low inflation) supply model as

I don't necessarily agree there is anything unintentional about the DHF spending. People (especially the very large stakeholders who have a big role in funding most of the proposals) for the most part

I was using the term develop more broadly than just code development (but some ongoing code development is needed too) You seem to have a viewpoint that spending should only be programmatically constrained

Well, printing is only way to go to zero, but not developing into something more compelling and self-sustaining is another way.

Stakeholders can certainly reassess how they vote on proposals, and you are free to advocate for this, but if you want to directly affect the DHF payouts, the way to do that is for stakeholders to vote

Interesting. I'm seeing 4.1G for comments (and more for shared_memory but I have a few extra plugins so that's explainable). Not sure why.

With 8GB of physical RAM it might be better to move the comments-rocksdb-storage back to a regular drive from the ramdisk, but it's hard to tell without testing. The physical size of shared memory plus

I looked roughly at all the proposals (excluding the stabilizer which returns the payments) and it was around 5 million USD per year. Seemed like a lot given the current market cap. So overall I agree

I wouldn't be singling out valueplan if your concern is the effect (on the price) of the total amount of spending. Vote up the return proposal to make it harder for lower-ranked proposals to get funded.

I think all DHF spending (and post rewards) ultimately affects the price of Hive both in terms of direct cost (selling pressure) as well as positively by whatever value is achieved (attention, recruiting,

Decline rewards gets allocated to all other payouts. Obviously trending gets the lion's share of that.

Good point about savings, thanks for the heads up

The code had some issues and I didn't feel like it was adding much liquidity anyway. I'm working on a reimplemented one that should return at some point in the future.

The stabilizer benefits communities because people in those Hive-platform communities want to hold value or make payments in a token that doesn't fluctuate wildly in price according to speculative markets.

HBD in the DHF won't count toward the money supply when calculating inflation, similar to how it currently doesn't count toward the debt ratio.

I'm temporarily favoring burning over hbd.funder because of the issue of excess HBD build up in the DHF leading to increased inflation. Fixed with the next hard fork.