So I upvoted this post not because I agree with you but I think it’s an interesting conversation.
The way HBD is setup, anyone can run their own mini versions. HBD is backed by HIVE which is not a stable cryptocurrency so I would not expect it to stay at $1 consistently.
I’m not sure the amount of hive in smooths wallet means anything. HIVE is so cheap it’s not that much money.
Stabilizer doesnt act on upbit only internally the real price of hbd is comparing how much you sell in here for example here i am selling for 0.093 hive right now in this moment and if i i go to an exchange like binance I will sell hive for usdt by 0.0932 the ratio gives me 0.997 $ … people need to forget about upbit price or coinmarketcap…
The internal market price has dipped many times past months. Just not as often.
Yea but now is a bit stabilized last week wqs crazy, maybe i will post about the numbers
For now? That’s not stabilized, that’s just its continued up and than down unstable self.
The amount I was pointing out was the staked HIVE on the stabilizer account, which is far more than would be needed to truly peg it at a dollar on UpBit. Didn't look at smoothies wallet !LOLZ, just the stabilizer routes.
Well I called it smooth's wallet because of this -
I would need to find the post but I believe smooth has encouraged other people to run their own versions of HBD Stabilizer in the past to try to decentralize HBD Stabilizer.
HBD Stabilizer is funded through the DHF. If we have a particular question, I’m guessing smooth would be receptive and answer the question if the question is concise.
I’m all for accountability but I’m just not sure what the goal is here.
Like do we want that HP out of that account? Do we want HBD to stay at $1 everywhere all the time?
It initially said all HIVE and HBD so technically, it should be returned. As for a dollar everywhere? Is that not what makes a stablecoin?
I looked at the wallet and I am not sure where that HP came from. Is that HP from the DHF or the reward pool?
2nd part -
I was under the impression HBD Stabilizer is just about holding the internal price to peg.
I would think if we want HBD Stabilizer to cover all exchanges that would cost more from DHF.
I agree with him. These are things I've been saying for years.
I’m not convinced a lot of the “problems” on HIVE are consistent. I’m also not convinced any of our problems are systemic.
It’s possible to change things here if people have a lot of HP and people don’t attack other people’s character.
To me, everything is contextual based on the current market and what people are doing on chain today.
These things are true. However, how stake is wielded is determined by what incentives are given stakeholders. The incentive to accumulate stake to impact governance is both positive and negative, depending on how much you can accumulate. If you can accumulate enough to become a potent factor in a majority stake coalition, you have strong incentive to acquire it because that coalition can manage code to benefit them. If you can't accumulate that much stake, you have a disincentive to maximize your stake because governance will be managed by a coalition of stakeholders that are managing the platform to benefit themselves.
I disagree with this. Incentive structures are good for predicting the average person. They are not good at predicting unique or eccentric people.
This is, of course, true, but financial incentives drive financial decisions, and Hive is a plutocracy that requires only 50.00001% of stake to completely control governance. Generally speaking, folks with the most substantial stake will be those that best attain it, and best manage it, and their decisions when granted unitary control of a financial asset can be counted on to exercise maximal prudence. The first rule of investing is to preserve your capital, and only then to seek to increase it. I observe that Hive management has been exercised to prevent control of governance from being acquired by more capital than extant management can bring to the table by means of presenting the aspect of a poorly performing asset. Being listed only on Upbit, a shrinking user base, and a token declining in value all discourage investment from deep pockets.
They don't prevent unique individuals with significant assets from investing, as you exemplify, but they have to date discouraged investors that could easily buy all the Hive tokens being sold from doing so and seizing control of governance as Sun did Steem. Because the extant Hive management maintain control of governance solely because of their possession of a bare majority of stake there is not another mechanism that can prevent someone or group with more money than they have from taking over governance.
Perhaps there is some other factor I am missing. Can you think of anything else that prevents control of Hive from being purchased by someone or group with deeper pockets than extant management?
I really don’t think people need to discourage deep pockets from investing in HIVE. The genesis of HIVE was mostly because someone bought in without a large stake and without community support.
I think that’s the answer to your question.
That's not an answer to my question, but disregards it. You do you.