Do we really need 3 HBD stabilizer proposals? I would prefer solving this issue on the blockchain level, by implementing HBD <-> HIVE conversions (convert to HIVE and convert to HBD) in both directions, adding a small fee that is burned for a convert operation, and to lower the debt ratio from 10% to 2-3% to be on the safe side in order to reduce the impact of HBD induced debt during bear markets.
Proposed hardfork change to stabilize Hive Dollar’s tracking of USD value
https://peakd.com/hive-102930/@blocktrades/proposed-hardfork-change-to-stabilize-hive-dollar-s-tracking-of-usd-value
The Hive conversion is coming in the next hard fork as far as I understand it today.
The reason for the multiple proposals is so the appropriate ones can be voted in based on how much budget is available. While a 100HBD/day proposal might be fine sometimes, times like this a much larger one is needed. In fact, multiple are needed with the current budget.
If only one big proposal was made, then it would drown out all proposals if it got approved, rather than selectively being able to choose the amount used.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
Hard forks are only done once or twice a year so that's a good longer term solution, but not short term.
Even after a conversion hard fork is implemented, there may still be room for funds doing trading to fine tune the peg near $1, but we will see.
is there a way we can allow more with soft forks (without risking chain security)? Would make things more flexible.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
Only for things that are limiting, not for new functionality (at least not without great complexity; it is indeed theoretically possible).
That's why RC is implemented as a soft fork and can be changed without a hard fork. All is does is limit the ability to perform transactions (when your RC runs out). Other soft forks have been used to block transactions taking advantage of exploits in the past. So again, limiting.
ok, thanks.
That's good to know.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta