The 3.5 day delay strikes me as problematic for HBD peg maintenance. The fund should hold liquid HBD for that purpose, so it can react in a timely manner. Holding the HBD in an interest bearing account strikes me as revealing the true interests of the management of the fund, that getting some interest on the holdings is more important than taking action to maintain the peg which is what the fund is for, has to wait >3 days to unstake the HBD to react. It shows there's less concern over the peg than there is to rake in interest, and further centralize stake by keeping it away from creators.
The HBD funder comments are just a scam. There is no need for them, except to ease the maximization of curation rewards of the upvoters. It's insulting TBH, and really shows the level of concern for the strength of the platform of the voters on those comments to be negligible. The reason for curation rewards is stated in the original white paper to be to incentivize curation of quality content, and the HBDfunder comments enable maximizing curation rewards with no effort and no curation. Worst of all no creators are rewarded for their content, which directly reduces marketing that content does, devalues creation, and the very purpose of the platform.
HF28 made it even easier maximize curation rewards without curating a single post by reducing the number of votes to deplete VP to zero. Frankly, I am deeply dismayed by the raw avarice and lack of good faith revealed by the HBDfunder scam. Was it your idea?
There is no HDB in an interest bearing account having to do with the stabilizer. The stabilizer receives it, converts it if appropriate, uses it for trading if appropriate, and then sends it back when the price does not provide any opportunity to exchange or trade. Nothing is held.
Opinions obviously differ on the merits of voting for hbd.funder comments vs other posts. I'm not going to try to convince you. I don't think it was was my idea, but I don't entirely remember.