RE: Could HBD Completely Change Hive?
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
There was also the stabilizer program that might not have done a ton to stabilize the price of the token but it did generate millions for the DAO. This will help to ensure the ongoing funding of Hive development down the road.
Another way to say this is that the people at the top siphoned surplus value from the bloggers and social media users into their own pockets. All under the guise of "helping". I don't necessarily subscribe to that conspiracy but there are plenty of others around here that would see it that way.
But touching on the actual subject of this post, yeah, stabilizing HBD shouldn't be too difficult, and the zero-friction economy we are creating is sure to push velocity through the roof. Perpetual motion machines are quite valuable.
As far as 1 HBD being pegged to $1's worth of Hive: it will be very nice when $2-$3 is used to overcollateralize the asset. Get a real futures market in here and allow users to mint both Hive (short) and HBD (long) on demand with CPD smart-contracts. But then again I'm just beating a dead horse on that front. Perhaps that's a bit overzealous considering where we find ourselves today.
I presume you are referring to a few of the posts that were used to fund that which were upvoted by larger accounts. While I did disagree with it a bit, the amount, overall, was insignificant.
As for the siphoning, I guess one could make the case there is a lot more for the top developers to siphon out of the pool if wanted. However, since it was a funding that was done through the open market, I am not sure it would fly too much either.
Nah. You see the potential. You are on step 7 while the system is moving to step 2. So you are just a bit ahead of the game but you see what is possible. It will be fun to watch what is eventually built out. A lot of good things happening.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
Actually I was referring more to the general idea of lowering the value of HBD in such a centralized manner. Traditionally when the peg breaks to the upside bloggers cheer because everyone is getting much bigger payouts (it's obviously insane on Steem right now with $8 SBD).
Simply the act of dumping dev money onto the market and cycling it back into the fund is a bit suspect, especially when paired with the fact that many funded proposals were defunded during this time because they were being "paid too much".
So instead of allowing bloggers to earn more and devs to earn more, we instead diverted that value back into the dev fund in order to theoretically increase potential future gains instead of allowing the community to have them. It's a valid strategy if and only if that money ends up going to a better place later... so I guess we'll find out... maybe?
This mistrust also loops back to the ninjamine, which in my opinion should have obviously been destroyed but now sits in the dev fund for very little reason. It is a constant (albeit currently neutralized) threat to the network. We don't need gobs of money sitting around to fund development. The network can print money on demand whenever it comes to consensus to do so. We don't suddenly have more money for development because the ninjamine is sitting there. That money can't be dumped on the market without causing serious damage to current liquidity pools. It's 100% liability with no upside.
But many don't see it this way and those same people are doing good work so who am I to judge?