That is just your opinion. There was never any claim when the DHF was created that posts could no longer be used to fund develop. In fact, some stakeholders like transisto believe that ONLY posts should be used to develop software and for makreting efforts. Personally, I think both have their uses.
Yes, that's why I said should though, I am not saying it "has to". From a design and system perspective that is what it is for.
I can see a problem with this type of thing in that people with lots of money coming into Hive, or people who have lots of money currently, just upvoting it for easy APR. There is always the downvote as a check/balance to keep someone like Haejin or Rancho Relaxo doing that(though they seem to upvote random things on Trending to get around being downvoted in return).
I can see both sides to this, so I am not one way or the other in particular on that issue. I've said that we need to have more funding for Hive/marketing so that is always good, building the ecosystem is good. I don't particularly see the need for a stablecoin made in the way HBD is made, as I am mainly in the Ethereum camp and am pro DAI and other stablecoins. As things progress forward with Dexes and cheaper fees I can see Ethereum/Polygon/BSC having options that are more useful for Hive than HBD. I've separately written a different comment before on how Hive could be distributed for DHF proposals and sold at market prices in other stable coins that are locked in contracts(someone has to write this obviously) instead of having HBD as the funding curency for the DHF. This would have the added benefit of more Hive getting into the hands of minnows/new people joining as the price point would be pushed down with the consistent downward pressue.
For consistency I would like to see everyone trying to encourage all funding stuff to go to the DHF, instead of upvoting comments. The large upvotes on the comments doesn't exactly go against POB, because POB is a very general and encompassing term. I would say it WOULD go against POB if the comments were purely spam and didn't help the ecosystem in any way, but the HBD Funder does help the ecosystem. It's in a sort of weird grey area in my mind, but I wouldn't downvote the HBD Funder comments myself, that's just my view.
I don't see any risk of it being upvoted just for easy APR. As I mentioned elsewhere, I could achieve the same or better "easy APR" by randomly following a voting trail (something I believe a lot of large stakeholders do, because it gets hard to distribute rewards from a large stake effectively once your stake gets too large). As it is, my APR for curation rewards is a little smaller than if I followed a trail, but I consider it worth it because I'm a strong believer in building up more funding for future marketing and development.
The mechanism that Hive lacks right now is a way for stakeholders to dynamically vote for how inflation is directed. Those numbers are currently hardcoded and can only be changed by a hardfork. A long time ago, @smooth suggested we have a mechanism that allowed for this, and I've always liked that idea, but like all changes it would require more work and testing and could result in unexpected problems. I've always considered voting for posts and comments that fund marketing and development as a good compromise on that idea, because it doesn't require code changes.
I spoke with Smooth about this question of dynamic inflation pools only a few days ago at some length. He said he still thought it was a good idea but that he didn't think any decision makers in Hive were interested in it. I put a strong case for implementing something that regulates the public image of the reward pool on Hive and ensures that percentages allotted to each category of reward are adhered to. People look at investment trackers to identify projects to put funds into and they often list the percentages that Hive pays to witnesses, the reward pool and the DHF. If potential new investors look at those percentages, decide they like them but then come here and find out that the reality is quite different - with developers syphoning funds from author rewards into developer rewards - many will just drop hive into the 'scam' bucket that they are primed to do with all projects they investigate because so many really are scammy.
Overcoming the negative PR accrued by Hive due to Steem and other reasons is going to require intense focus on every single 'small' opportunity to tick all the boxes of people who check Hive out. I have a hell of a time getting anyone new to come from web 2.0 to Hive at the moment.. It was similar with Steem, but actually even harder with Hive. As a marketer, I will say clearly here that no stone can be left unturned when dealing with these issues.