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.