How ironic.

Posted Using [LeoFinance <sup>Beta</sup>](https://leofinance.io/@themarkymark/re-abbak7-3iawrs)

Good job

hive.fund is included in current supply and all of the supply figures. However the HIVE that HBD can be converted into is not included in current supply (it is included in virtual supply). This applies whether or not the HBD is inside hive.fund. By sending HIVE to hive.fund, it is converted into HBD and thus removed from current supply.

Related: the HBD inside hive.fund does not count toward the debt ratio/print rate/haircut.

> Hard to say if the proposals that have recently lost funding would be better for Hive

Seems like a matter of degree to me. When HBD was only a little above, the return wasn't so huge, and the other proposals can be left alone. But when DHF can double its money instantly, it seems reasonable to me to take this opportunity to grow the fund as well as reducing HIVE in circulation, and resume the proposals later.

As noted in the post, the proposals all got extra funding for about a month due to HBD being worth more than the assumed $1 (though not to the current degree, generally only 10-30% extra), so that's another reason some interruption doesn't seem like a big deal to me.

<center>https://media.tenor.com/images/bb829d72d90cd5e8152fcaf2d4b072e1/tenor.gif
[Via Tenor](https://tenor.com/)</center>

> I don't believe those funds were put there for the intention of manipulating the market. Which is kind of what you all are doing here. You're kind of telling me that the HIVE price is scaling up because of money flowing into HBD so in a way it's being artificially propped up?

- The funds in the DAO should be used for *any* project that is deemed worthy of funding by the hive stakeholders. I think that most stakeholders would agree that "fixing" the peg and (as a side effect) increasing the buy preasure for hive are worthy enough.

- The concept of market manipulation doesn't apply here. There is excess demand for HBD hence the price of HBD being above the *intrinsic value* (if we can use such a term). As stakeholders we are doing what any rational participant would do in an open market (of any kind)...if the demand shifts the price the supply is increased to account for that.

- There is no "artificial" price being created here. It is just a market opportunity that we are taking advantage of. If market participants cannot take those opportunities then who will?

> ...consider other options and pros and cons such as calculating the value of HIVE on payout and paying out the HIVE value to USD value.

I don't understand what you are proposing here. The rewards are based on the scheduled inflation rate and payed out according to the predefined distribution on the blockchain code (65% to posts, 15% as "interest" to stakeholders, 10% to the DAO and 10% to the witnesses). I don't see how the dollar value plays any role here. Unless if you are proposing to track the value of HBD and pay more of it when it's price goes above the peg and viceversa.

Now that I think about it I believe there is a witness parameter that can be modified but there maybe some long term risks by tampering with that.

May I also ask what do you mean when you say that we should "fix the backend" to stabilize the peg? The price of any asset is determined by market forces and not by "backends". I believe that perception plays a larger role when it comes to stablecoins...USDT is traded at one USD because people believe that it is backed by an equivalent amount of real USD. DAI is traded at one dollar because traders are confident that they can redeem it for 1 USD's worth of ETH (or the other assets that are used as collateral).

When traders see HBD on exchanges they don't see a stablecoin. The way the trading pairs are setup may play a big role in that perception.

I explained why in the post.

Posted Using [LeoFinance <sup>Beta</sup>](https://leofinance.io/@themarkymark/re-bluerobo-65jcnp)