Do I want to rephrase it? No. You claim something I didn't say at all, and somehow think I should therefore rephrase what I actually said. Its a pretty aggressive argumentation tactic which I frankly resent. In short, its a dick move.

I don't agree there is any backdoor, so I disagree with your basic premise. Everything else falls apart in your argument at that point.

As far as I know, you are some kind of programmer, but you don't even seem to understand what a backdoor in software is. Here's the definition: Definitions: An undocumented way of gaining access to computer system.

The DHF was designed to function exactly as it does. It's been front and center that it functions this way from day one. You're making an argument that it should scale based on market size, but the fact that it doesn't doesn't make it some kind of backdoor.

There are of course limits on how much can be spent on the DHF. Per day, it's limited to 1/100 of the total accumulated supply in the DHF. And that accumulated supply can be "burnt" if stakeholders agree to it. And the rate at which funds accumulate are in fact tied to marketshare.

Beyond all the above, this is a stake-weighted voting system at its base. Any code-feasible protocol change could be enacted by stake-weighted voting. The DHF works on the same rules, the only difference is it doesn't require a hardfork to enact the change.