You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Why are all (mostly) proposals unfunded

in LeoFinance3 years ago (edited)

Meanwhile HBD continues to do whatever (external) market forces decide.

In the long run though hbdstabilizer has to be a good thing. I understand that HIVE in hive.fund isn't included in current_supply and so isn't included in the inflation algorithm. And so, the higher HBD goes, the more HIVE is taken out of current_supply - surely this is good for use all in the end.

Hard to say if the proposals that have recently lost funding would be better for Hive.

Sort:  

hive.fund is included in current supply and all of the supply figures. However the HIVE that HBD can be converted into is not included in current supply (it is included in virtual supply). This applies whether or not the HBD is inside hive.fund. By sending HIVE to hive.fund, it is converted into HBD and thus removed from current supply.

Related: the HBD inside hive.fund does not count toward the debt ratio/print rate/haircut.

Hard to say if the proposals that have recently lost funding would be better for Hive

Seems like a matter of degree to me. When HBD was only a little above, the return wasn't so huge, and the other proposals can be left alone. But when DHF can double its money instantly, it seems reasonable to me to take this opportunity to grow the fund as well as reducing HIVE in circulation, and resume the proposals later.

As noted in the post, the proposals all got extra funding for about a month due to HBD being worth more than the assumed $1 (though not to the current degree, generally only 10-30% extra), so that's another reason some interruption doesn't seem like a big deal to me.

Thank you for clarifying.

...when DHF can double its money instantly, it seems reasonable to me to take this opportunity to grow the fund as well as reducing HIVE in circulation...

When you put it like that hbdstabilizer makes good sense. Hopefully HBD will settle and the proposals that dropped out can resume funding soon. I guess what we don't want is HBD to continue to be way off $1 and those proposals seeking funding remain below the return proposal, with frustrated devs. packing up shop and heading elsewhere.

I agree. Another solution if it does go on is for some large stakeholders to organize a fund to temporarily pay devs and get paid back from DHF later. You would need enough large stakeholders to commit to support this to have a good expectation of being paid back, but I know I would support it.

Good job