The timing is poor so I think if the authors decide to vote it through they need to:
- Support the burn proposal,
- Commit to not convert the HBD and use the internal market
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
The timing is poor so I think if the authors decide to vote it through they need to:
That's a sticking point for me right now too. Terrible timing with the market in freefall and what appears to be the start of a bear market. This proposal feels like a luxury type idea that would have been okay a few months ago when things were positive and up, not in the red. I wrote a reply that proposes we don't fund subscriptions and we fund deliverables instead.
They need to buy the subscriptions for the AI Agents so I do not think they could use the internal market for this.
Oh summer child they do - they convert convert DHF HBD into Hive and sell/swap it on cexes. We just want to exclude conversion part and introduce buying Hive
I don't really understand what you are trying to say I guess that's why you called me summer child 😆
Maybe, maybe I am one as well. What's important, in order to use DHF HBD for any expense you need to swap it (HBD has few options while Hive has more and greater liquidity) thus DHF beneficiaries convert HBD diluting Hive
The world can be a dark place so if we are both a summer child maybe that's a good thing because we can ignore the darkness and have a good time 🤣
I very much understand what you are saying now. I think the DHF is inherently dilutive regardless of how it’s done. I think the practical answer is to support the return proposal and only support proposals that bring value and have the cost be reflective of whatever that value is.
It's hard to assess which proposal are the best in cost effectiveness. Some would put more weight on marketing some on developing new functions...and none of them are actually working.
There's the burn proposal that you should support and I wished @blocktrades would also support it.