I agree with everything you said. I never said that we could have a fixed percentage of governance.
I just said I would like it to be so. HBD does not help that case.
You are pointing out another way that you don't know your future share of the percentage of the governance.
I know, but it's not as significant as the change in supply caused by HBD. Not going to argue over a few percentage change over years, but when we burn 3% of the Hive supply in two weeks, this is not insignificant. That burned tokens could be back and then more at any time too.
To be completely clear, right now, HBD is great for hive given what speculators are doing, the Hardfork changes, and the hbdstabilizer proposal.
It's the next 1-2 years that worry me as we don't know how far down hive can go. The very long term also worries me, if governance somehow becomes irresponsible with its use of HBD, but with the current group of people, I am not worried about that at all.
I can't say I disagree with you about long term governance, but I don't agree that HBD is a major issue. Poor governance can, and likely would, run the system into the ground with or without HBD.
Good point. HBD is just a tool to do that.
In theory if the converting is high, the demand for hive is high.
So the price should become higher. I think ( no math behind) with faster scaling in users, it would become stable by nature. The only thing we need to remove are the 5% for converting. 0,05% would be enough.
Payment mobile app (keychain) with QR code scanner and so on would build a stable usecase, as long HBD can scale.
I would be in favor to make the stablecoin to a "on demand one".
With our beautiful no transaction fee chain, it could be really revolutionary. ( RC delegators could earn a fee for Rcs for example).
On-demand means, I need HBD, I can generate HBD as much I need (up to millions). To make it secure a DAI lock up mechanic could make sense.
Yes this makes a lot of sense, I would prefer this to the current model