One thing I like about the haircut is that it tells people HBD is not risk free. You are being explicitly told that you are taking risk. If HIVE fails to hold enough value, there is no nonsense about how printing trillions of HIVE is going to save you.
Of course, you do need to understand what you're buying, and it isn't necessarily clearly explained all the time.
That's not the only risk, but once you have one explicit risk, it isn't claiming to be risk free.
Any real reason why not remove HBD and make a DAI out of it? DAO could easy pay in hive connected to $ value of hive.
I think this would scale better to some higher level
I'm not even sold on DAI being better in any useful way. For one thing, a lot of its collateral is USDC (used to be the majority, but less than that now). What's the point of that?
Until you show me a collateralized stablecoin with only on-chain assets as collateral demonstrating clear superiority l don't see the point in a major revamp. This has been done before, of course. DAI originally did that, but didn't perform that well, leading to the current situation. BitUSD was the first I think.
new to me, the last time I looked into it was 20 months or something ago.
If thats the case, It would suck. But collateral coins are IMO better.
And yes if social tokens would be used for collateral, ponzi is in.
But with liquidation and "go to zero" and not hurt underlining asset.
Maybe with pool mechanics + pool lock up something new is possible.
Like lock up assets in pool for trading ( earns trading fees to pay back the loan in cleated stablecoin, by entering the pool).
So no moving access to asset. Sure with liquidation and all that.
Problem would be manipulation with dumping prices artificially. Maybe not a good idea :)
Algo coins are very difficult to scale in a sustainable manner.
Maybe we should invite tether to hive :D and give them a token slot on L1 :D
Problem solved as long tether is here. If tether bust, hive drops 99% too, no matter we use it or not.
Win win
LOL good solution!
haha :)
https://daistats.com/
thank you for this, that's really interesting.
I will think about it :)
we will always have a catalyst point to destabilize an algo coin.
IMO an impossible to solve the problem if not "real fiat" or "USD pegged stablecoins" come into place.
But for this, it would need semi-active management, and with this, it creates a risk itself.
Another way would be ultra utility for Hive. But that fails for years. to make an algo coin valuable we need to the underlining asset an insane natural demand.
Maybe Hive Dex with smart contracts "close to free deposit and withdrawals with close to every cryptocurrency" with open API and dozens of front ends?
With some super smart way, front ends can earn and expand?
But bear would also lower trading activity and destabilize.
Social will never pay the amount for natural demand if the system not improve massively.
I think social + stable coin + scaling are itself a problem.
Another way would be advertisements decentral for hive paid in HBD, there would be always demand, but also difficult to solve.
With the difference, HBD would have an economic sense.
But looking all above, every point itself is big industry.
I agree IF you are actually claiming that it is stable no matter what. But with a haircut, we do not claim that. I don't think this is impossible at all.
Yes, it is true that Hive may fail, and HBD fail with it. Otherwise, it's probably fine. Probably not ideal, and can be improved (not referring to anything specific here).
sure.
I think if HBD becomes privacy stablecoin ( or opt-in/out privacy) the value would be higher than the downside risk for a lot of people.
And i would expect a lot of natural demand that makes it stable itself, because it would be used.
Luna UST was only used to trade/ gamble. That would be very different with HBD then.
But not from one day to another, but I'm sure people would build with it.