The current power down rules allow users to power down their STEEM at a rate of 1/13 per week. The first payment is made 7 days after the power down is started.
What if users want to power down faster than that? What if someone wants to cash out 100% of their SP today?
There is a cost to the network for allowing users to power down quickly:
- Large dumps can cause dramatic price drops.
- Users could double vote for content if they receive their liquid STEEM within the 7 day voting window.
It is in the network's best interest to have slow power downs, but it is not in the best interest of individual investors. Individual investors would like to be able to power down quickly.
What if we could setup a system that benefits both parties?
We could do this by burning a portion of the STEEM if users want to power down faster than the normal rate. This would give the individual investors the liquidity they want, and it would benefit the network by reducing the supply of STEEM.
| First Payment Delay | Number of Payments | Cost |
|---|---|---|
| 7 Days | 13 | 0 |
| 7 Days | 4 | 15% STEEM Burned |
| 7 Days | 1 | 25% STEEM Burned |
| 0 Days | 1 | 50% STEEM Burned |
This could be really beneficial if there is a huge price spike, and users want to take advantage of the high STEEM price. It can also help unhappy participants exit the network quickly, without needing to stick around for 13 weeks.
By decreasing the amount of STEEM coins in existence each time this occurrs, the value of STEEM would increase due to decreased supply.
Thoughts?
You know it turns out the liquidity issues with steem are a myth. Let me explain why.
If I purchase ethereum I can sell it seconds later if I want. This is true of all cryptos.
It is also true of STEEM.
If I purchase steem, I can sell that steem seconds later.
Where it differs is that I can choose to POWER it up and convert it to steem power. This is more akin to purchasing a CD or making a long term investment.
If a person is truly primarily concerned with liquidity and just steem as an investment then it is pretty simple. Don't power it up.
This is something that I hadn't really thought through myself until you wrote this post. I'd always seen the liquidity problem as a barrier.
Yet in reality that barrier does NOT exist unless you choose to power up.
Powering up is not a feature available to other cryptos, so if you treat steem the same as you would any other crypto then it is just as liquid.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
earned SP is not powered up by choice, some users may want to power down faster and burn some to get the steem
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
This is true. Yet that is also a special feature to steem. There is no true analog to that in other cryptos. The closest it could be compared to is mining. It could be spun many different ways in terms of the outcome of our mining. It can be spun positive, or it can be spun negative. In the negative sense as has been the typical approach it can be "I posted and was paid in steem, steem power, and steem backed dollar, and I cannot get to the steem power very fast so it has low liquidity". It can also be spun in a positive way "Not only does posting pay me in steem backed dollars, and steem, but it also gives me an investement into the platform."
It is mainly a matter of perspective and how it is phrased, and looked at. If you approach it from the negative then yes you are given steem power as a portion of the income from what is effectively the method of mining for steem, and this portion has low liquidity. If you view it from the positive then you are getting steem, and sbd which have high liquidity AND you are also getting investment into the platform.
This could also be spun other ways. What if the mining were effectively halved and all you got was the steem, and the sbd, and the payouts were effectively halved because you didn't get the steem power side of things.
At that point the old steem power rewards that were no longer there would likely be attractive and missed.
The issue is steem/it/busy.org is being compared to other cryptos and there is not really a one to one comparison. It has several unique qualities that are like trying to fit a square into a circle hole (yes if the hole is large enough you can still do that, but you know what I mean).
So mainly my AH HA moment about liquidity was also about perception. It can be spun as having no liquidity, yet if you spin just the parts that actually can be compared to other cryptos then it has as much liquidity as they do. It adds MORE and this more has no analog within the other cryptos to compare it to.
So I guess what I am getting at with this realization is we can perhaps spin this into a positive thing when talking to potential newcomers by how we frame this perspective. If they are simply a crypto investor... they can buy steem and never power up and it is the same as buying/selling other cryptos.
I do see the appeal of being able to get to the steem power quickly in the form of a protest, or I need cash quickly for some family emergency and I know there is some in steem power that I can get to slowly. However, I also know this is how steem power works.
If we want to change this as a form of experiment to see how it works I am okay with that. With the caveat that if it doesn't work out too well we can take a step back from the idea. This is true of pretty much any idea for me at the moment. Let's experiment. I'd like to see a lot of experimenting, but one experiment per more frequent hard fork. When there are a lot of changes it is difficult to say with certainty which change led to which effect.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I agree that the liquidity is there as a choice, but having more options is beneficial too. Users may want to power up to have more voting power, earn curation rewards, and earn the interest on their SP. Having users make this choice is beneficial to the network, because it reduces the liquid supply of STEEM. If we added the 'enhanced liquidity' options, there would be additional benefit to the network for having users power up.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Yes, I don't disagree. It was more a perception and AH HA moment. I was seeing the liquidity as a barrier as I'd heard people like John McAfee say there was no liquidity. Yet really it has the same liquidity as ANY other crypto unless you decide to power up. That is optional, and people stating it has no liquidity makes it clear that people haven't really considered the distinction that powering up is totally voluntary and optional.
As long as they don't power up then it is just as liquid as any other crypto.
As to your idea about powering down. Like I've said many times... at this point I'm all for experiments. As long as they are controlled. We also have to be willing to say "that didn't work" if it fails and take a step back.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I'd be fine with this.
Tim is a wizard.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Watch out for white rabbits with big teeth.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I like this idea. It's a very good way to reduce steem supply and if there is a big price spike a lot of steem will be burnt in the process.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Interesting idea that is kind of like the penalty for early withdrawal of the time deposit or fixed deposit. Also like sacrificing the coupon/interest from a bond by selling out early.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
That's a great analogy.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Thanks, hope it helps people in understanding the logic.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Interesting idea. I would like to see all of this algo tweaking halted though so that efforts can be focused on developing amazing front-end experiences.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I think front end and community retention is more important at this stage as well. This seems to be focusing on treating it exclusively like a crypto. It is more than that. This is something we can change later and it might not be a bad idea. Certainly worth some experimentation. Fixing the front end and focusing on user retention rather than user exit should be where our zots should be at.
EDIT: Also the liquidity is there for traditional investors. If they purchase it as STEEM and don't power it up then they do have instant liquidity. If they choose to power up then that is a unique thing to steem/it.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I think both are important. The change itself would not really be a big coding effort. If we increase the value of the coin, that is more money to pay out to users, which helps drive the growth of the platform. I do agree though that if it was a mutually exclusive decision that focusing on front-end growth initiatives is more important.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Keep in mind is that the slow withdrawal schedule of SP is a good safety mechanism in case your account gets hacked. An attacker wouldn't care about 50% loss if they can get your funds instantly.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
That's a really great point - thanks!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I like this idea. It make sense from an economics point of view.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Uhmm @dwinblood & @lpfaust both have brought very solid & sober arguments to take in account about @timcliff proposal.
Me, like a novice investor and most important, like a 'liquid pauper' steemian contributor to this PowerUp/PowerDown game & discussion going on over here... I guess, I'll need a lil bit more of time to study thoroughly both sides of the coin first to come afterwards with a more consistent and coherent response.
It is not an easy task for me figure up yet, what my viewpoint would be if I were just a filthy wealthy chap swimming exclusively on cash. ;)
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
It's been suggested before:
https://steemit.com/steemit/@mughat/let-people-power-down-instantly-for-a-50-haircut
Also, don't forget, for people who have delegated, there's an additional week delay. Maybe that can be part of the cost schedule as well..
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Thanks for the link :)
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Excellent post sir @timcliff, many thanks for your point of view
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Thanks @jlufer :)
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
That is an incredibly interesting idea. Certainly something to look into. I 'd max out at 35% burned to power down instantly but instantly should have a random 1-3 hours (anywhere in between) delay to help thwart crashing the exchange.
Good Idea!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Upvoted for an innovative suggestion. Not sure if this is the best path, as I don't see this problem as being acute, but liquidity is important also. Thanks for starting the discussion.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Agree with @donkeypong - i discovered today a great blockchain based app that helps people from poor countries to got fairly rewarded, would love to see more linked to steemit in the future
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
what is this blockchain app uwe? Steemit?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Lol not Steemit- app is bext360, my post
https://steemit.com/blockchain/@uwelang/sustainability-innovation-how-blockchain-helps-to-pay-coffee-farmers-fairly
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
It is sound fair, if we want get quicker to power down and get liquid, a part of our steem get burned. Nice idea ! :)
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
This seems like it is worth considering... great thoughts!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
This is a very interesting idea. Thanks for thinking this through.
I actually think implementing some version of it is something we need to consider very seriously.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
A percentage % burn idea for quick access - kinda sounds like the penalty you pay if you want to pay off your mortgage quick! I like this idea. I'd take the hits to get the SP I needed for curation or trading quicker. Great idea Tim :)
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I am sad to loose any of the great Steemit Creators powering down - some do it as of frustration, some just move on, some need the money - sure there can not be made exceptions for people proving the need the money for living to speed up without losing money - interesting approach though!
Thanks for sharing!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I rather like this idea, but I'd have to think about it more. We'd want to be very careful in creating the penalty function.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Concept is good and one then has the choice to exit gracefully should one wish... but I am of the opinion that we should stop all the tweaking and let the decentralized, ungoverned community find its own equilibrium over a period of stability.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
We should definitely plan to get to that point, but I don't think that now is the time to do it. If/when the platform scales to millions or billions of users, it will be very hard to tweak things. If there are changes that are going to improve the platform, now (while we have a low user base and are in 'beta' mode) is the time to do it.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
This platform doesn't make sense for buy and hold because of the inflation.
If anything powering down needs to go up in length, imo.
20% a month, 5 months and out.
The math is looking to me to only make sense for successful authors and curators.
For anybody that can't beat the inflation it is a losing game once the price stabilizes.
I need to study the math a little more to find out if even half us can beat the inflation.
As it is the last number I saw, some time ago, was that only 40% of authors were getting any payout at all.
My curation scores are not adding up to much, but I don't have a lot of sp.
This platform has been running long enough to crunch some numbers, but I don't have the skills to query and collate efficiently, I have to do it by hand and on paper, but I will, in time.
I'd like to see a multiplier added to an author's incoming votes that rewards holding a targeted amount of sp.
Probably in the dolphin range.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
@timcliff while I think scarcity has a part to play in the equation of perceived value of digital tokens, I would suggest to you velocity of exchange would do more and should be the primary focus on driving the price of STEEM.
In some ways it feels like we are experiencing a series of reactionary knee-jerk responses attempting to temporarily juice the price of STEEM. The talk of burning STEEM is very similar to stock buybacks with publicly traded companies. It's a very expensive way of destroying capital which could productively be deployed elsewhere or returned to shareholders as a dividend rather than wasted on overpriced shares by creating artificial scarcity.
I think a better idea to increase the short term perceived value of STEEM Power would be to drastically increase the interest paid to those who hold STEEM power. I think it's the more prudent of the choice between evils and it's the best use of the shareholders' capital.
...and considering we all allegedly own a piece of this....
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Or proportionally reward long term holders with more STEEM POWER, similar to IRA vesting with an employer.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
@steemquestions I would agree with this proposal because it creates a greater perceived value of STEEM and a reason to power up. Currently no such compelling reason exists.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Not at all. This actually would likely have the opposite effect. In the short term, this would likely put downward pressure on the price of STEEM, and it would make price spikes less "spikey" because more people could become liquid and sell at the higher prices. In the long term though, this would likely benefit the network because there are a lot of STEEM tokens in circulation right now.
It is a good analogy, but there are some differences. We are not 'buying back' anything. The owners of the SP already have their coins. All we are doing is allowing them to sell it quicker. There is no real 'cost' to this other than an increased supply of liquid tokens in the short-term.
Burning STEEM coins is essentially the same thing as paying interest, except it goes to all STEEM holders (not just SP holders). Returning the coins to SP holders as additional interest would be an alternate version that I would support.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Kiss.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
The KISS approach would be to just allow people to power down 100% after 7 days (for free). Do we want that?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
We complain how banks manage our money, so we kind of escape to crypto world. We don't need any restriction when and how much to withdraw or deposit. Free will- blockchain. Just my opinion.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Thanks for starting this thread. Same mindset here. The blockchain is here to stay. No matter what any crypto will do in the upcoming years. I think that's a conclusion we can make by now. Does anyone know about: https://www.coincheckup.com Every single coin can be analysed here based on: the team, the product, advisors, community, the business and the business model and much more. Go to: https://www.coincheckup.com/coins/Steem#analysis To see the: Steem Detailed report.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit