That is a valid point and great explanation. I would still call it stable coin, the algorithmic one.
You actually provide the answer yourself. The answer is in the liquidity and volume. HBD has proven that the peg works. Even if market decides to pay more than what it is worth, blockchain still offers conversion of 1 HBD to 1 USD worth of Hive.
Now, if there was large liquidity and trading volume, market price discrepancies would be corrected in seconds. But we can't all of the sudden create billions of HBD and throw into the market. This too is a powerful features, that it costs money to mint and HBD can't be printed out of thin air. It will take a long time for HBD liquidity to get to significant levels that it can be used everywhere. Unless, some whales decides to throw millions and billions to mint it.
Sure, for day to day prices these sudden fluctuations don't make it look stable. But on month to month basis it does act stable to me. If we don't call it stablecoin, what else would we call it? Any other terminology would probably confuse people even more.
Community bond.
Hive is equity. HBD is bond. Hive provides equity and bonds. Maybe one day it will also provide a functional stable currency, but that is somewhat up in the air, because it is very much an untested idea that HBD would actually have sufficient liquidity and stability to function as currency at scale while ALSO sticking within a debt limit.
There is an argument that we should avoid the term "bond" because of securities laws. That is true but the argument may go out the window when stablecoin regulation comes in and they're required to register anyway.
How or who would they require to register HBD? Is it even possible?
And if it is not registered, what will/can they do?
Both of those are very answerable questions. Exchanges would be forced to delist Hive and HBD unless it was registered - Hive.io would come under pressure to register it both from exchange partners and the state.
Decentralization makes it harder for the state to target Hive, but just being decentralized does not mean there are not targets. The people involved with hive.io are known individuals whom the state can target with legal action. The witnesses by and large are known individuals, not anonymous, whom the state can target with legal action. The developers who contribute on GitLab are mostly known individuals who can be targeted with legal action.
It's a widespread story and mythos among the crypto space that decentralization makes us immune from the state. That is not a very strongly tested idea. In fact, the few times it has been tested, the state has so far come out on top.
Decentralization gives us tools that will make the fight with the state easier, when that day comes. But it would be foolhardy to think that the state could not effectively crack down on Hive today, if it were on their radar.