You’re trying to reduce a forensic accounting tool into “a list sortable by HP” because that’s easier to dismiss.
Yes, a sortable HP list is trivial. It also answers almost nothing about DHF-driven issuance.
This dashboard measures something very specific:
Which proposal support actually authorized DHF payouts
Who received DHF HBD (primary)
Where that money flowed next (secondary, including labeled exchange exits)
All over rolling windows, with assumptions disclosed.
On “biased formulas”: that’s not a critique, it’s a feeling. If you think a rule is wrong, name it. Otherwise you’re just asking for the fog back.
On your concrete example (worldmappin #313): you were right to flag it. We had a calculation bug in the attribution pipeline.
Corrected result: your attributed amount for that proposal in the measured window is 316 HBD, not 57.
Bug fixed, dataset rebuilt.
Separately: your @blocktrades comparison (13k vs your share) is exactly why this tool exists — most people assume “my vote did nothing” until stake-weighted authorization is actually measured instead of guessed.
And the “irony” line (“criticizing inflation while asking funding”) is just rhetoric. Hive already issues via the DHF. Measuring who authorizes issuance and who captures it is basic governance hygiene.
If you want to debate the model: debate the mechanics.
If you want the fog back: just say that.
Depending on who you are, you get support. If you speak against the narrative you get dismissed. If you highlight the circle jerking and abuse of the dhf. The same thing.
You only need a few votes from the right people to get your proposal passed. The devs, those with the HP are killing the chain because they have no interest in the value of HIVE token. So long as the hbd is there for them to cash out at a dollar.
This could just be a misguided opinion. But it sure appear that way at the front.