There is no way to confirm/verify, "over-working when above and under-working when below the peg". And proposals are made with consideration that hbd will be $1 and costs were estimated accordingly. So anything DHF over paying could be returned to stabilizer, that’s basically what we started to do. So you are still covered for development and also helping to decrease supply/increase future funding by sending back to stabilizer. Beside in script we can add threshold parameter for downside risk and stop returning HBD when it is 20% or 10% close to peg.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
This is by far the best solution imo. 100% fair and extra hbd earns money for the dao.
There is also no way to confirm/verify I'm "working" I could spend 20 hours scrambling to fix a bug testing tons of different stuff and end up committing 15 lines of code for the week (which has happened to me before) unless I livestream all my coding sessions.
But the "cost" to the chain is the same ultimately if the proposal asks for 100 hbd, it costs the chain 100 hbd if hbd is at 1$ or 100$
Which is a totally valid approach imho, I think it's up to each proposals to be like "I can either reduce the cost to 0 for the chain or alternatively make it so that the chain gets double the work from the proposal (if the proposal applies)"
Also regarding reducing the supply/increase future funding, while true I think it's a drop in the bucket, the hivesigner prop pays out 70 hbd per day, so half of it goes back to stabilizer, meaning 114 extra hive per day it's nothing compared to the 76 million hive from the ninja mine waiting to be converted.
hivesigner/ecency and hive in general would benefit so much more from you hiring a contractor with the extra funds to work on some new features imho.
Neat !
you are right and we have 6 guys working in all 3 proposals combined, it is all or nothing in current state, but with this approach, there is some compromise on both sides and we can continue focusing development, improving, innovating.
Drops fill the ocean 😅 I hope DHF funds will serve chain at least 20+ years
Yeah that's totally fair, If it's "not funded or half goes to stabilizer" then 100% go to stabilizer
Haha the 10% inflation is a more reliable/ bigger source than 2 months of "above the peg" I think
Similar point that I made above. There is no guarantee that the market will absorb the 10% of inflation without just hurting the price. Maybe it will, maybe it won't. But when the market does give us a way to suck in some value on very favorable terms, we should take it. The amount here is pretty significant, I think we've pulled in several hundred thousand USD worth at this point, and still going. In a month or two it could be at least a million or two.
Fair point, I guess we'll have to see.
The hbdstabilizer yes because it's funding is 850 hbd per hour, but the "normal" proposals that are getting paid 10-20 hbd an hour don't have that big of an impact if half of it went to stabilizer instead of funding more development imho
Once again I would say we agree on these points.
i don't really see these at the same thing. If we wanted we could print a 100 billion HIVE into the DHF but that wouldn't necessarily mean there is a market for it. At some point we end up back where Steem was when Steemit was (arguably) dumping more than the market could absorb for their own funding and it was self-defeating in a way, because the more they sold, the more the price went down, hurting the funding.
I believe it is quite plausible that the 74 million will end up in much the same situation when we try to spend it (no guarantees ever when it comes to future market conditions of course). However, funds that come from taking HIVE off the market now seem less of a risk of flooding the market later. It's a bit like borrowing from the market (on very favorable terms given the prices today) rather than just selling what are effectively new coins in a way.
I guess my comment is going to be the same as the one to you above regarding the low impact of "regular" proposals on the hbdstabilizer in terms of contributions.
So this is where I argue that funding development is how we create that need from the market that can then absorb it, but I agree that it's definitely not a given and the hbdstabilizer is a much more straightforward and "safe" way (in the sense of how risky it is to have benefits compared to the funds) to bring benefits to hive.
I think we agree almost entirely.