That's only your opinion, I see it differently. Although I am not a top 20 witness, I can say that my motivation to keep it at 20% is that the amount of HBD in circulation is extremely small and not enough to become a significant and recognizable stablecoin in the industry. We need to print a lot of HBD stably to make it better. Our current circulation amount is prone to market manipulations.
Do you think it makes sense for a stablecoin that isn’t backed by actual dollars? While I applaud the unique mechanism that keeps HBD pegged to the dollar, not having a real dollar backing each coin (assuming all parties issuing a stablecoin actually have a dollar for each coin in existence) might also mean that the amount of HBD printed should stay more relative to Hive’s user base rather than trying to match the scale of other stablecoins.
Backing by the "real dollar" means there's a single entity you need to trust that emits new tokens and keeps the backing assets in their accounts. Our solution is much better in my opinion.
Completely agree, I was more wondering about whether it justifies the 20% APR.
I'm honestly curious to be clear and don't mean any offense. I'm trying to learn more about the witnesses and the processes behind Hive these days but can't find so much information about the reasoning behind the 20% APR on HBD
You would need to ask each witness because everyone sets it independently. There were multiple discussions on and off-chain regarding this. I think the idea to set it to 20% emerged yet before Luna collapsed (as they also offered 20% APR). Since then, some witnesses keep it at 20% (because there's no sign of it's negative effects) and some already changed that to lower value.