It's actually 14% right now the deciding vote is on the fence and can change at any time.
I'm seeing 12, and I thought they'd already lowered the interest rate -/
Everyone has their own reasons and their own rationale—I was only talking about myself in my post. Perhaps someone else might even see a point in staking at minus 5%.
Ah yep I'm seeing 12% again.
It's flip-flopping around quite a lot it would seem.
According to the internets 12% is still higher than the average rate of return vs the stock market.
Fair enough if that's where you draw the line personally but you gotta admit that's a crazy statistic.
You’re right.
But there’s another important point here — witnesses juggle the numbers like circus performers. That creates a lack of clarity and confidence for people considering investing in HBD.
I remember someone mentioning interest rates tied to a fixed term — that would be much fairer and more reasonable (in my opinion).
In financial matters, stability and predictability are key.
I understand the situation is complicated, but to me, constantly lowering the interest rate can only make things worse (just my non-professional opinion). Maybe someone can explain the opposite to me?
In my opinion the amount of yield offered should have never been static in the first place.
Static both in terms of the percentage and the fact that it's allocated to locked stake.
If this had just been a HIVE/HBD AMM the entire time with variable yield depending on how big the pool was we'd be way better off right now. Locking HBD in a 3 day contract doesn't have any value to Hive itself. It's only been allowed to exist because Hive users like it.
The free market really should be determining things like this.
Less people staking their money should result in higher yield.
More people staking should result in less yield.
In fact that's exactly how it works for Hive and the reward pool already.
Yeah, I get that this model works well for Hive itself — the reward pool is dynamic by design, and people accept that volatility.
But HBD feels like a different story.
If the rate drops as more people come in, you eventually hit a point where new investors just lose interest. The incentive disappears right when adoption starts growing. That’s a bit counterintuitive if the goal is to attract more capital.
For something positioned closer to a “stable” instrument, people expect clearer rules. Not necessarily fixed forever, but at least predictable enough to make decisions.
Otherwise, it starts to feel less like saving and more like guessing where the rate will go next.
That’s why I still think some form of term-based or locked rates could balance things out — let the system stay flexible, but give users a bit more confidence at the same time.
I agree with your sentiment 100% here.
From an end-user perspective it's hard to argue.
Stability and predictability are key.