Scheduled inflation became irrelevant a long time ago, with the DHF being denominated in HBD our inflation rate will depend on the price of HIVE.
This was a conscious decision with the HIVE fork. We removed some supply temporarily, and converted it to HBD. As those can be converted back to HIVE, the supply rises when HIVE price goes down.
But even as things are going now,we have about one to two years left before our supply reaches that of the chain we forked from. It's disingenuous to claim that the funds that were always supposed to return to the supply would be some kind of excess inflation.
You should of course always ask yourself if a proposal can add value. Everyone will evaluate that differently, but you can be damn sure that the voters with big influence do it too. If things work out as hoped in the end is a different story.
All in all, I don't see this project as helpful. It misrepresents individuals influence, ignores the founding history of hive and the DHF by sticking to the inflation schedule of a dead blockchain, and certainly won't help to make HIVE more valuable.
You’re basically arguing “because it’s complicated, measurement is pointless.” That’s backwards.
Yes:
DHF is denominated in HBD.
Conversions make realized supply sensitive to price.
Supply outcomes depend on actor behavior, not just the emission curve.
That is precisely why “scheduled inflation” is not enough — and why measuring realized supply effects matters.
On “those funds were always supposed to return”: that’s an intent story. Protocol reality is timing + control. Conversions aren’t automatic; they’re initiated, and their timing changes supply outcomes.
On “dead blockchain schedule”: we’re not worshipping a dead chain. We show Hive’s programmed baseline vs realized outcomes once you include DHF + conversions. That gap is the point.
On “misrepresents individuals’ influence”: if the numbers feel uncomfortable, that’s not misrepresentation — it’s what stake-weighted governance actually means. If you think the model is wrong, attack the specific rule. If you just don’t like what the accounting reveals, that’s not a methodology critique.
Thank you for your reply, which adds a lot more context to the inflation situation. I have not decided whether or not to vote for this proposal and in general I like to be exposed to as many different sides of any issue as I can before I form my opinion. And my opinion can change in the future as new data comes in. So again, thanks for adding your valuable input on inflation and this proposal!