HBD is backed by HIVE. Any additional non-zero amount of HBD paid out from inflation, is a non-zero amount of additional inflation on HIVE.
If there is more inflation on Hive, and the price of the token suffers more than it would have without the inflation, then the people that get hurt won't be just the content creators, but all the investors, including those who hold HBD in savings - the debt ratio will at some point be hit due to collapsing price of Hive absent better incentives to buy and hold it, and then interest payments will halt.
Your first point is pertinent to this whole discussion. It isn't very attractive, for creators, or investors.
I buy HP because it gives me enough governance to direct attention to the app I create and support.
People seem to forget that the attention economy is real. If you look at some of my previous twitter posts on brain energy, you'll see there is a large attention deficit with respect to the market price, and fair value price of Hive. This means if you buy HP, you can actually capture an attention base above what the fair value would normally afford you to.
Has that worked for us?
All this is not without spending time understanding demographics, and optimizing for growth + retention. We have even gone as far as coming up with a model based on eigenvector centrality to measure network effects of users to make for a more justifiable and likely appreciated curation effort.
That is all to say, it is still worth it, now more than ever, for projects, front-ends, dapps, to acquire HP. However, for me personally, speaking as someone who would otherwise be happily buying tranches of Hive for HP, I am not comfortable being out competed by people who take on zero duration risk, zero market volatility risk, do not have to work, do not further distribute stake, and yet get paid more and can exit on a whim.
Even if I was to make further investments (and I am probably still going to) - I don't believe that the vast majority of people who do any real due diligence, or come in with size, are going to go into Hive/HP.
I will also add, that returns scale with risk. HBD is far less risky than HP. It doesn't make intuitive sense to funnel whatever capital flows in, to the asset which needs the least amount of risk offset return.
I think CURATION REWARDS are already too high
(back then was the GREAT NEW IDEA to incentivize having HIVE/ HP)
but now you guys want to AGAIN lower POSTING REWARDS (which already has been lowered hardly with the 50/50 posting/curation splut)
you still remember that without posters/ content creators
the value of Hive will ultimately crash?
no matter how much great everything else we have..
we should also maybe think in the other direction and bring back some old curation reward curve
and give back some more rewards to the content creators posters/ which do the real work, not only vote a little or have some savings...
or decide to steal even more with their witness club..
If you can't convince people to buy hive, the outcome will eventually be that you can split it whatever way you like, 80/20 to creators, 90/10 to creators, heck 100/0 to creators. What they earn will still be worth zilch.
Just as a note, the pool would still be split evenly between curators/authors. Just HP holders would get a little more for holding HP for at least 13 weeks whilst authors would get a little less.
Instead of trying fervently play the redistribution game (lets not sink to commie mentality ?) how about we try grow the size of the pot?
I'm not in favour of passive return. I think we have enough rent seeking going on in the world, we can do without much of it here. If we have to pay people to come, then they just leave when we stop paying them. It doesn't make markets more efficient if you allow a large percentage of it to gain value for zero additional productivity.
I will contend also, that the value of Hive is more than just the aggregation of it's content creators. Yes they are an important aspect of it, but the utility of the chain itself goes much beyond that.
This I can agree with. Rewards should be higher for those putting in work and effort. While passive income still can be a thing it shouldn't be paying out double what actively working on the platform is currently giving.
Content creators honestly are not that big of hive and will shift away from that more and more in the years to come. Mainly because content creators will most likely earn a new UIs layer 2 token (while yes still earning some hive as it should be so they can still interact with the chain for resources)
But that's going to keep shifting towards application growth and building. It's one area however that's drastically lacking. Id also honestly love it that layer 2 applications start to generate revenue themselves. There is no reason an application built on top of hive should not be generating revenue for their own profits, developers and if they have a layer 2 token then value of their own token. It's an area that needs work as well. An app running on top of a blockchain is a business and thus should be treated as one. Its up to that application then how they want to use those profits. Buy more hive, reward their users, improve token value through buy backs etc.
so why do you guys want to lower posting rewards EVEN MORE ?!
(you all forgot the 50/50 posting/ curatin SPLIT THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO RAISE ATTRACTIVENESS OF HIVE(POWER)
okay - then drive off the content creators
and stay here alone with your 5 investors and 5 witness (SERVER ADMINGS, NOT BANKING INTEREST RAISING GUYS)
and just shit on the community, while claiming to be some decentralized BLABLABLA
and just being monopolised heteronomy like everyone
GOOD JOB
THAT WAS WHAT HIVE WAS THOUGHT FOR
WE DO NOT NEED CONTENT CREATORS AND REAL PEOPLE HAVING CONTACT AND CONVERSATIONS - THEY CAN GO ON X
lol you guys
we just need tokenomics voodoo BLABLABLA
investment return BLABLABLA
something else we THINK WE NEED NOW
maybe you guys are also just interventionists
Oh! now i'm a bit confused. So, what you just said means that @lazy-panda's account isn't yours after all?