Why are we even still using this method? Last April you stated it was only until the next hardfork, a couple of months.
Which method are you referring to? The stabilizer? The stabilizer has a small advantage over just relying on stakeholders with liquid Hive and HBD to perform conversions: it doesn't lose from the 5% burn on Hive to HBD conversions (because the DHF has a 0% conversion cost on Hive to HBD, unless liquid Hive holders). This means that the DHF can still profit from conversions when HBD is less than 1.05 but greater than 1, whereas liquid Hive holders can't.
Ultimately this means that when the peg is reasonably tight, the stabilizer can deliver profits to the DHF. If HBD strays too far above the peg, then individual stakeholders can begin to profit (and bring in their own funds to apply more pressure to the peg). On the whole, I think it's a very good system, although every aspect wasn't planned from the start: normally the profits are shared by everyone who benefits from the work of the DHF and when those funds aren't sufficient, individual stakeholders can pitch in and profit as well.
I didn't have this aspect figured out when we initially designed the reverse conversion, but it became apparent after we start analyzing the functioning of the stabilizer in light of the new conversion functionality. I believe there were some post discussions between @smooth, me, and probably others on this topic in the past.
Just to throw this out there, I'm against having a dhf at all. You make plenty through your posts and can just post more when you feel you deserve more. Same for all others who are developing. This is the best method for the platform to decide if funding is warranted or the new code is wanted.
I can say with great confidence that many of the best coders don't like to spend their time making posts. If Hive relied on prolific posting to pay coders, it would end up with coders that like to talk a lot but don't get much done. A lot of the best coders tend to be introverts.
Even if that weren't true, you would have a hard time finding coders who will work fulltime when their salary lacks some guaranteed stability.
Then HBD value is moot.
Stabilization of HBD value is meant for more than just DHF payments. That is just a starting usecase for it. Having a currency that maintains some stability versus hard goods is important for all forms of commerce.
Oh, your curation rewards are not dust either. Kenny has simply done here what blockchain was built for. Brought to the light unethical behavior through the transparency it provides.
No, my curation rewards are quite awesome, although in all honesty they represent a relatively small part of my total income last year. But no one said they were dust: I think curation rewards are a strong incentive for people to hold Hive. The only downside is that they're immediate income and not capital gains, so there's no way to defer them for tax purposes. I have to work hard nowadays to try to figure out ways to spend them on business expenses before the end of my tax year(it's hard to hire quality devs fast enough nowadays).
What unethical behavior are you referring to? Voting for more rewards to go to the DHF? There's nothing unethical about that, IMO, it's just common sense if you believe that we need more developers on Hive.