Well I mean by definition any decentralized system is going to be redundant and create a lot of "wasted" effort.
Doesn't necessarily mean the thing isn't worth doing.
Yada yada yada I'm just giving my potentially flawed opinion.
The more I game theory the whole bonding thing out the less sense it makes to me.
I tried to get on board with the idea a couple times, but always big questions presented themselves.
Bonds only make sense to me if they are issued intelligently or governed by a free market.
Hive does not need to be taking random loans at random times to pump/dump price randomly.
It has to be way more tactical than that to actually work.
And even if we did create a good system that worked well there is no guarantee it's going to perform better than the service that we already offer (3 day timelock for flat yield). If I was in charge of HBD I'd change the static yields governed by witnesses to variable yields governed by the free market. If I really got my way I scrap it all for liquidity in the form of an AMM internal market. I'll take millions of dollars in liquidity between HIVE/HBD over locking HBD (and removing that liquidity from the market) any day.
That tickles my mind. I would say that the yield is variable since the witnesses can change it at any time, even if in practice there is significant inertia. But, it's probably just a question of semantics.
On the other hand, the idea of having more dynamic yields influenced by the market is interesting. Couldn't it initially be a bit like the witnesses do by regularly publishing the price feed?
Isn't that just what the @hbdstabilizer does?