I really hate to get in on this, given the people that I'm going to be agreeing with – but let's be frank, the whole idea of locking up your funds for an extended amount of time with the core system (as opposed to another user/agent) is part of why there really isn't that much interest in investing in the Steem blockchain. And we all know that's true.

Security is no part of the issue. None. That is a red herring being dragged across the path in order to deceive you. How many bits of security theater are there attached to wallet interactions on the Steem blockchain as it is? We have three significant passwords, at least two add on blockchain security manager plug-ins, and everyone is informed upfront that their wallet is literally that – their wallet which is full of money and if they lose it, it's just like dropping your wallet in the street. No one can say they were not appraised of the situation. No one can say that they were not informed that there passwords were important.

A 13 versus four-week power down time makes absolutely no difference, because if you haven't noticed by 15 minutes after the first powerdown request went through, you're not going to notice. You aren't looking. You aren't being notified. You aren't paying attention. You have dropped your wallet in the street and don't go through a sensible patdown ritual every time you leave the house. You are not engaged in due diligence.

And that's not my problem.

So let's stop trying to pretend that "the security issue" is real.

What is real is that requiring funds to be locked up in order to receive part of the reward pool is a tacit admission by the designers and developers that holding STEEM is not, has not, and is not expected to be financially viable. If they believed that to be the case, if they believed it to be a useful token, then merely possessing it in your account would be sufficient for rewards to be allocated to you. For exactly the same reason that I earn interest on my checking account when I carry money inside of it but the bank has no expectation that I will necessarily carry a significant balance at any given time and allows me free access to the entirety. They know that the money will be in there. They give me a benefit because while money is in there, they are able to make money by loaning it to other people and thus generate value.

The Steem blockchain is not predicated on the assumption that it will have any value. As such, the only way that they can artificially create that value is to introduce artificial scarcity, "locking up" those tokens in exchange for the theoretical possibility that someone will make more of those tokens by being active on the blockchain.

A bank can guarantee increased value extracted for themselves from static money in accounts because they push activity through it. They loan it to others and collect it. STEEM is not being held by a central active agent who is making use of banked STEEM. In theory, that is why delegation in exchange for payout has any traction at all, but just as importantly it's why there is a bot ecology; static SP earns no value and a machine can keep SP moving and active far more efficiently than a human being.

That's both the technical and the philosophical problems of the situation as it stands. It's based on a lie right alongside an invalid premise. It is significantly responsible for many of the problems that we have on this blockchain.

There is one more argument which is almost recursive, and to make it I will simply direct your attention to the other comments in this thread. How many of them boiled down to, "if people could immediately pull their money out, no one would keep their money in the Steem blockchain"? 75% of them.

Is that not sufficiently damning?

If some of the biggest holders of the token honestly and earnestly repeatedly tell you that unless people are forced to keep their money in the bank they might have the unabashed goal to take it out and spend it, then you should immediately be concerned. That should waive one of the biggest red flags that you've ever seen about cryptocurrency in general and the Steem blockchain and specific. They are stating, without hesitation, that they believe that same, rational, sensible people wouldn't keep their money here, that the benefits of holding SP are insufficient to keep people invested without forcing them to be invested.

That is an essential level of distrust. It's being espoused by some of the most active and respected people on the blockchain. They are telling you what they truly believe – and it would be both impolite and unwise not to take them at their word.

All of those are reasons that you should be in favor of a four-week power down. Even if you have no intention of pulling your money out. Even if you have every intention of putting more money in. Especially if you believe there is truly value to be found in the Steem blockchain.

There are strong arguments for suggesting there should be no powerdown delay. We aren't dealing with those. We are specifically talking about a four-week powerdown.

If the Steem blockchain is so volatile and so sensitive that it can't deal with me investing my money this month with the expectation of making a certain amount of additional money and then taking out my initial investment next month – we aren't talking about something with real value. We aren't talking about something that qualifies as a currency at all. We aren't talking about something that was ever intended to be a currency. We aren't talking about something that has inherent value because it can be used.

It's that last point which is perhaps the most disturbing. There has long been a social expectation among cryptocurrency enthusiasts in general and STEEM folk in specific that it is somehow unclean to actually expect to be able to use your money. That the highest calling is merely to HODL and nothing else. That trading your token for other things you might want dirties both you and the token.

I want to tell you right now: that is bullshit.

But that's what you're being told. That is what people are trying to convince you of.

Why do people invest in currencies? Not so they can own it – but so they can sell it. So they can exchange it for something else of perceived higher value. So that it can be used. People don't buy US dollars because they're required to sit on it for three months; they buy US dollars because they know they can sell them tomorrow, in six weeks, in a year, in 10 years, or in 15 minutes, in exchange for value. People don't buy gold so they can sit on it (without developing a scaly disposition); they buy gold because they know gold will always be valuable, because it can be sold in 15 minutes, tomorrow, in six months, in a year, in 10 years.

Mechanically forcing investors and worse, small account holders, to sit on their money says very publicly that the people making decisions don't believe that the token has value. Or, more accurately, that its actual value is significantly less than what one can earn with it, and thus people must be forced to hold it for a period of time because they would not otherwise choose to.

That is a problem. That is a huge signal. It's a big red flag and the Steem blockchain has been waving it for a while.

Will changing the power down time to four weeks fix that? At this point, probably not. But it's a damn sight better than what we have now.