Okay, I feel like I'm starting to understand some of the subtleties. I don't have a lot of data at hand so I'll let you validate my thoughts or not.

So in the end, the 20% HBD is a kind of experiment whose objective was to see if it would attract users and encourage people to publish? I'm sure it goes further than that, but that was the primary objective, wasn't it?

On that basis, the conditions for keeping the HBD at 20% could be as follows:

• A significant increase in the number of active users and their commitment to the platform (whether this is in fact attributable to HBD's attractive interest rate remains to be seen). But for this point, I think, if I've understood correctly, you've said it hasn't changed too much.
• The ability to maintain the stability of the HBD's value despite the high interest rate, reinforcing users' confidence in this stablecoin. This seems to be working well if we look at the total HBD in savings over time.
• An analysis showing that the high interest rate has not harmed the quality and quantity of content generated on the platform. I don't know how to calculate this effectively, but I feel like I'm almost exclusively coming across good to very good quality content.
• And one last thing, there would need to be evidence that the 20% interest rate contributes positively to Hive's economy as a whole, without excessive levies on the rewards fund that could compromise other aspects of the ecosystem. Is that right?

And if all this data shows that the 20% rate is unfavorable, then it should be lowered. But shouldn't it first be lowered to 10 or 15% instead of directly to 3%?

Shouldn't it be lowered cautiously, assessing the potential impact on the whole ecosystem? Then, I imagine, there could be an observation period to assess the effects of this modification on the platform's dynamics.