even if the prices go right back down to where they were, there is less HIVE in circulation
This right here is what I'm talking about. I understand supply/demand. I get that restricting supply causes price increases. But it's not a long term solution. The DHF is there to build the things that bring in sustainable demand for the token, and those being removed are what I'm taking issue with.
It's not a problem today, and it won't be a problem if this lasts a week. But sooner or later, this will have unforeseen consequences in the long term, something that merely restricting supply can't fix.
Also I would like to add I'm not taking issue with you. You see a problem, and you're taking the initiative to tackle that problem. I'm merely preaching to the stakeholders, hoping to either provide some perspective, or learn something myself.
I'm the primary stakeholder involved in the loss of funding for proposals right now. And I do place a high value on developers, as should be obvious from how many proposals I'm normally voting for. You're not telling me anything I don't already know about the importance of development to the long term future of the chain (and I'm not even mostly talking about price, since I'm more interested in improving what is, than what it's worth).
Right, I can propose all i want and if other stakeholders don't vote for it, nothing happens.
I agree on that point. It's a trade off. It depends on the relative merits, and that's both a question of judgement and numbers. At some level of financial ROI and supply reduction it probably doesn't make sense to interrupt projects at all. At some level it does. Those levels are subjective.
FWIW, I haven't unvoted anything (but I considered it). I was actually against interruption at lower HBD price levels (which mean lower immediate ROI) and thought the stabilizer should just use left over budget. At the higher levels, I'm more open to it, but not out there pushing it either.