You’re basically arguing “because it’s complicated, measurement is pointless.” That’s backwards.

Yes:

• DHF is denominated in HBD.

• Conversions make realized supply sensitive to price.

• Supply outcomes depend on actor behavior, not just the emission curve.

That is precisely why “scheduled inflation” is not enough — and why measuring realized supply effects matters.

On “those funds were always supposed to return”: that’s an intent story. Protocol reality is timing + control. Conversions aren’t automatic; they’re initiated, and their timing changes supply outcomes.

On “dead blockchain schedule”: we’re not worshipping a dead chain. We show Hive’s programmed baseline vs realized outcomes once you include DHF + conversions. That gap is the point.

On “misrepresents individuals’ influence”: if the numbers feel uncomfortable, that’s not misrepresentation — it’s what stake-weighted governance actually means. If you think the model is wrong, attack the specific rule. If you just don’t like what the accounting reveals, that’s not a methodology critique.