I'm seeing two flaws in your argumentation:
a) The way you're arguing makes it seem that the hbdstabelizer funding is sucking up funding that could else benefit new projects.
- Which it isn't true, I don't see any "upcoming" project that is currently missing out. Else, stakeholders can obviously easily push such noteworthy projects above the hbdfunding to make sure they get funded.
- This way we're basically killing two flies with one hit a) short term benefit + b) long term benefit with the leftover.
b) It also makes it seem that it might even be sucking up $ existing projects need.
- But those project have actually been getting much more than what they were needing for a while so they were overfunded (you can argue that they are paid in hbd, but as a fact all proposals are calculated in USD prices by the authors, because that's what pays devs and infra).
The remaining stakeholders could easily push the proposals that had their funding temporarily paused above the limits of the hbdfunding again if they think that those apps needs the extra money.
If you ask me
a) Dapps should be self-sustainable
b) A lot of projects are getting first class salaries for what they're doing from a community fund with very little to show as actual benefit for the ecosystem itself where I take the hbdfunding short term benefit 10x.
You made some very good points that were brought up elsewhere in reply to this post. So instead of repeating or copy/pasting them in response, I would suggest reading the top comment by smooth and the reply chain that follows and reply there if I'm off somewhere.
In regards to:
I agree. And I see the DHF as a way to incubate worthy projects until they self-sustainable, and not a long term solution. But that's not all the DHF is accomplishing. Core dev, public infrastructure, and documentation are things that benefit us all, without a clear non-altruistic way to get funding.
This is where it gets really tricky. Controlling variables is nearly impossible in these circumstances, so getting the data about impact of a particular project is usually circumstantial and tangential. Which is why allowing stakeholders to vote their confidence and letting it play out is the only reasonable solution. And the benefits of hbdstabilizer can be directly measured, but only assuming variables stay constant. If BTC tanks, then HIVE tanks, and it would produce a net negative while also losing all the things that could be created with the fund. What I'm getting at is don't put all your eggs in one basket.