Do you know how much is paid out every day in rewards? The hdbstablizer posts are an incredibly small fraction of that payout. So your content/rewards loss arguments is really a non-issue, IMO.
So, my point is reward pool should not be utilized to fund projects.
This is totally wrong, IMO. It's always been used to fund projects (in fact some stakeholders think it's the only way we should be funding projects, although I'm obviously not one of those people).
Eventually we created the DHF to help fund larger projects which were hard to fund sufficiently via posts. But it's still a great way to fund very small projects: it requires far less effort for everyone concerned.
It's becoming obvious to me that many people don't really understand the percentage profits made by the stabilizer posts and the stabilizer proposals, or I guess there wouldn't be complaints. Here's the math as I calculate it: Investment of 10K that returns 30% in a day. Even ignoring compounding, that is an APR of 10680% (30% * 356 days). And all that profit is being redirected into buying Hive, which drives the price of Hive, which in turn drives more profit for content creators and curators. This is not a zero-sum game.
Every time I see someone comment that this won't stabilize HBD, I just think to myself, that would really be cool for Hive holders, if it was true, because it would be an incredible money making machine.
But in my opinion, eventually at the current growth rates, the ever-growing selling pressure created by these efforts will inevitably push HBD down. And everyone that profits from Hive (stakeholders and content creators) will benefit from the incredible returns it generates while the process lasts.
According to hiveblocks.com there is 861,358 Hive = $340,236 in rewards fund.
At the same time @hive.fund (DHF) has 75,058,945 Hive and 1,418,916 HBD.
It seems to me DHF has more than enough to fund any project compared to rewards fund. Perhaps, we can change how much DHF can distribute on daily basis if daily distribution seems to cause limitations.
With stabilizing HBD we are trying to make something to work as intended. Shouldn’t we also care about how rewards funds is also used as intended?
I would love to see HBD to work with full of my heart. Because primarily I see its benefit in e-commerce which Hive is more than capable of powering. Does it really have to be at the expense of author rewards when we have plenty in DHF?
I have read your proposal. It sounds really great. Let’s implement it and see if we can actually have pegged HBD. What Smooth is doing is also great/ These two proposals can make this happen. Why not just use DHF?
Yes, I understand in grand scale of things rewards for couple of posts may not mean much. But optics also matter. Do we really want to showcase our best rewarded posts as a fix on a stable coin that we couldn’t deliver internally within the blockchain algorithm? Do we really need to be diverting rewards fund to fixing HBD on trending?
I believe the success of Hive and growth of stakeholder stakes will have to do with growth of the network, growth of the user-base, growth of the discoverability. Making rewards pool work as intended should be as high of a priority as any other projects.
For these reasons I believe we should not have Hive Stabilizer be on trending or to be funded form rewards funds. We have accomplished so much so far. There is no need to go back to old thinking, and old habits.
Ultimately stakeholders decide and they have the most to lose or gain. But I wouldn’t want to be working for the stakeholders who put more value on auto posts that bring them profits over many talents we have on Hive.
Lastly, I hope you know I have tremendous amount respect for you, for your team, and many many people of Hive. I am just sharing my thoughts. Please accept them as constructive criticism.
Regarding your point about DHF funding, my original specification for the algorithm didn't divide "new money" by 100 for the daily budget, only "old money" already there. So it would have been capable of handling this situation easily, because it would have allowed for daily compounding.
I'm certainly open to changing the algorithm to work per my original spec (although such a change would need to be part of a hard fork).
Please don't misunderstand, I'm not offended. I just disagree with you on the economics.
The returns being generated in this case are "optics-positive" for investors interested in profits, IMO. And those investors are ultimately responsible for all funding to content providers, although many people don't seem to understand this.
FWIW, I came to post as FYI for readers what the ROI would be with compounding. I decided against bothering with the actual number after seeing what my calculator spit out, but it was something like 10^43 percent annually.