HF Proposal: Vote to Reduce Power Down Period to 4 Weeks

smooth (70) · 5 years ago (edited)

I'm all for four weeks or even one week. I don't think it is demonstrated that these long lockups provide clear benefit at the system level. Yes there are benefits to an individual whose account gets hacked, but these come at a cost of adding dead weight (which then contributes to everyone losing 99%+ of value) to the system as a while. I'm not sure that is a good trade-off.

If people want a longer lock-up for security purposes then perhaps the savings account feature which has never been used much can be repurposed to a voluntary longer safety-focused lock up.

There are also other approaches to reducing hacks such as building in 2FA with a mobile app. Lock-up is not the way to do this.

I'm sure there are people who will deny that Steem's misfeatures such as long lockups and high inflation are responsible for its price decline but frankly speaking I think that is 99% bullshit. Yes it is a bear market and yes crypto coin prices can have a mind of their own, but most of the reasons Steem has declined from a top 10 or maybe top 20 coin to barely hanging on in the top 100 are bad design and execution decision of our own making.

$2.06

17 votes

clayop (73) · 5 years ago

I am for less than 4 weeks, like just one week. Long powerdown was coupled with high inflation rate for SP in order to disincentivize liquidating STEEM. For the current economic design, I think one week is a better choice.

$0.70

5 votes

thecryptodrive (70) · 5 years ago

Thanks @clayop, please cast your vote on the proposal if you haven't already.

$0.00

proxy.token (54) · 5 years ago

@proxy.token supports your opinion, and thank you for your voice as many Korean users think, Mr.@clayop!

$0.00

liberosist (70) · 5 years ago

Funny, I don't see anyone clamouring for lock-in periods with bitcoin. Or, really, any asset in the world. This stuff has been solved a long time ago with various methods of cold storage. I'd imagine hardware wallet support will be enough for most regular people. Not to mention, there's the account recovery solution and savings account. Even beyond those, there are better solutions. What more does one need, at the cost of negating all investor appeal?

Many of these "unique features" of Steem have failed. It would be prudent to adopt what has proven to work in the crypto market. There's a $240 billion market of tokens with no lockup, how much for those with 13 week walls, again?

$0.22

therealwolf (75) · 5 years ago

I'm using my active-key quite often, especially due to the fact that Steem is a cryptocurrency that is being used, in comparison to Bitcoin, which most people simply hodl. So yes, there is a completely different level of security need for Steem.

liberosist (70) · 5 years ago

There's orders of magnitude greater usage for Bitcoin. BTC transfers are worth thousands of times more than STEEM transfers every single day. Not to mention, Ethereum and its many ERC tokens have a far greater diversity of operations and transactions than Steem, as do other several other chains, almost all of which have zero lock-in. Or, EOS, which processes dozens of times the number of transactions as Steem, and has a (still unpopular) 3 day lock-in.

therealwolf (75) · 5 years ago

That's complete BS. Obviously the median transfer of BTC is higher, but most of it is through cold-wallets. I wouldn't hodl 100k or 1M in BTC in a hot-wallet. I would only access that wallet from a trusted souce very, very rarely. I would probably even have multiple wallets to reduce the risk factor and use a hot-wallet for most general transfers i.e. purchases.

thecryptodrive (70) · 5 years ago

Glad you are of the same mindset, please will you cast your vote on the proposal @
@liberosist

$0.00

liberosist (70) · 5 years ago (edited)

My vote is negligible, but I've voted anyway. To be clear, I would prefer to have a 3 days power down period, and have the payout period reduced to 24 or 48 hours. But 4 weeks is a step in the right direction.

$0.00

therealwolf (75) · 5 years ago

To be clear, I would prefer to have a 3 days power down period, and have the payout period reduced to 24 or 48 hours

treepi (64) · 5 years ago

Haha, bad idear there.

$0.00

treepi (64) · 5 years ago

Why would you want payout reduced? Then you'd only have 24 or 48 hours to earn rewards. Way too short. People don't log on every day to upvote things. If anything it should be longer for payout periods. The fact that you can only earn rewards for the 1st week is kind of shitty. It should be forever with payouts being made every X amount of days or X amount of earned Steem.

$0.00

steem-ph (59) · 5 years ago

Steem isn't locked up, it's liquid, just like Bitcoin.

It's only Steem Power that's locked and I think it makes sense to keep Steem and Steem Power separate and distinct.

$0.00

svamiva (60) · 5 years ago (edited)

or even one week

So, you don't mind Bittrex staking its customers funds and using it to vote for witnesses, SPS and posts ?

$0.20

therealwolf (75) · 5 years ago

Another good point. We're seeing it with EOS that exchanges are using customer funds for voting purposes.

$0.07

thecryptodrive (70) · 5 years ago

Thanks @smooth, please cast your vote on the proposal if you haven't already.

therealwolf (75) · 5 years ago

There are also other approaches to reducing hacks such as building in 2FA with a mobile app. Lock-up is not the way to do this.

How exactly will this prevent any hacking from the blockchain level?

If people want a longer lock-up for security purposes then perhaps the savings account feature which has never been used much can be repurposed to a voluntary longer safety-focused lock up.

The savings feature works only for STEEM, not STEEMPOWER. Which means, in order to be "save", someone had to forfeit any rewards earned through vesting inflation or possible voting-rewards.

I get the point of the lockup currently being a somewhat dis-incentive. But we're not fixing the system, by turning a screw without asking whether or not the screw is at the right place or if the screw breaks if we turn it more.

smooth (70) · 5 years ago (edited)

How exactly will this prevent any hacking from the blockchain level?

I'm not sure what you talking about. If you mean bugs in the blockchain code, lock ups don't prevent that either. They prevent people who get access to keys (for example by exploiting the web site) from performing transactions. 2FA would provide pretty much the same protection.

The savings feature works only for STEEM, not STEEMPOWER

Yes, I was suggesting that it perhaps be changed to work in a more useful way since the existing feature is almost unused. Again, an experiment which failed, so we should move on and try something else.

by turning a screw without asking whether or not the screw is at the right place or if the screw breaks if we turn it more.

I don't agree we are doing that. IMO we are thinking about what could break and concluding that nothing would. In part we are also looking around and seeing what several hundred other active blockchain projects are doing and seeing that they do just fine without months of lockup in the base layer.

$0.00

therealwolf (75) · 5 years ago (edited)

I don't agree we are doing that. IMO we are thinking about what could break and concluding that nothing would. In part we are also looking around and seeing what several hundred other active blockchain projects are doing and seeing that they do just fine without months of lockup in the base layer.

I don't mind the reduction of power-down if it comes with a dynamic model and increased the incentive to lock it up longer.

Yes, I was suggesting that it perhaps be changed to work in a more useful way since the existing feature is almost unused. Again, an experiment which failed, so we should move on and try something else.

The only thing that failed is a model with a fixed time of 3 days, which is just not dynamic enough. Imagine you could set whatever time you want, maybe with a hard-cap of 1 year or so. You could go as low as 1 hour or 3 hours, if you're a business who is doing some kind of escrow job or maybe 7 days, depending on your needs.

I don't agree we are doing that. IMO we are thinking about what could break and concluding that nothing would. In part we are also looking around and seeing what several hundred other active blockchain projects are doing and seeing that they do just fine without months of lockup in the base layer.

You mean what they're not doing. Am I that crazy for thinking that a dynamic lockup with higher APR will incentivize more people to lock-up their Steem? Who else got that kind of a system? Pretty much no other blockchain AFAIK.

mattclarke (68) · 5 years ago

I'd go for that. I'm here for the long haul and would readily lock in my SP for 5 years for a solid boost to vote weight and resource credits.

$0.00

ecoinstant (68) · 5 years ago

Ooooh, I quite like where this idea is going.

$0.00

mattclarke (68) · 5 years ago

First time I bought and powered up it was for 104 weeks.

$0.00

novacadian (58) · 5 years ago

I don't mind the reduction of power-down if it comes with a dynamic model and increased the incentive to lock it up longer.

One obvious compromise, @therealwolf, might be to weight the share of ones inflationary reward with how many weeks one has chosen to lock down their stake with a range of one week to one year. This request for a shorter lock down request is obviously with investor types in mind. The only concrete reason given is that everyone else is doing it. My compromise would be for the benifit of HODLers like myself. 😎

Allow me to allow the math majors to figure out what the increase in inflation rewards would be as weeks of the lock down setting is increased on ones stake.

As the inflation rate is slowly decreasing, the benefit of the change would eventually begin to favor the investor types more over time. This makes sense as the token would be slowly decreasing in production at the same time.

$0.00

fsm-liquid (48) · 5 years ago (edited)

Why I was proposing the two staking pools is to cater to both short term and longer term investors.
Shorter term investors have more liquidity while still can participate in PoB and longer term investors who are willing to give up liquidity to show commitment by locking up have more power in governance.
The silly thing about the current system imo is that 13 weeks is such a tall commitment especially on crypto space to participate in PoB, one of our "unique feature". On the other hand, people with minimal commitment voting on the future of the chain looks like recipe for disaster.
If it's deemed to be too complicated to implement I suppose it's not worth it after all.

Custom duration lockup period that works with SP would be cool but It will never be implemented because it will never be on top priority lol.

If this proposal passes as is I am actually more in favor for 1 week instead chickening on 4 weeks, maybe I am too paranoid about exchanges voting. As for security... I guess we need to be more careful with our keys.

$0.00

smooth (70) · 5 years ago (edited)

I think staking multiple pools, variable locking periods for security, etc. might be okay but I don't think they should be at the base layer. If we had even simple smart contracts like Bitcoin or perhaps even a tiny bit more powerful, then these sorts of features could be added as applications (and this is necessary for things like cross chain swaps, payment channels, etc.). That's obviously not going to happen in the next version but once we are done playing with SMTs, maybe we will start to realize that trying to satisfy every need at the base layer with hard forks needed for each and every change is impractical and foolish.

$0.00

fsm-liquid (48) · 5 years ago

Ideal solution to me is where staking long period is not only a security feature but also grants more power for witness voting and SPS by giving up liquidity. Ideally will be like 1 week stake have x1 vote multiplier, 2 week stake have x2 vote multiplier, and so on. If staking for a long period have no incentive whatsoever might as well have minimum stake period.

jankos55 (46) · 5 years ago

I agree that reducing the lock up period to 4 weeks is going to be a positive change. 13 weeks seems to be a huge amount of time. If an uptrend starts and you want to unstake then at the current situation would be a waste of effort but while 4 weeks might be just right.

Posted using Partiko Android

$0.00

crypto.piotr (70) · 5 years ago

Agree with you @smooth

One week power down should be enough to still feel safe and secured (as a user). However somehow I like idea of 4 weeks power down much more than 1 or 13.

Yours
Piotr

$0.00

guiltyparties (70) · 5 years ago (edited)

This isn't a frontend vs chain development problem. It's something that needs a blended approach.

I'm for the change if:

Accounts must opt-in to the 4 week divestment rather than opt-out of it. The 13 week divestment is a security feature that prevents accounts from being instantly cleared out if compromised.
It is treated like an advanced feature and not like a simple click of a button. Frontends should commit ahead of time to provide sufficient information to users who are selecting it.

We have to recognize that while we're aiming to improve our attractiveness to investors we're also reciting "mainstreaming" like a broken record. There's no way to mix advanced and basic. If we try we'll end up with something that doesn't work for anyone.

There are rolling waves of phishing and hacking on Steem. We recently suppressed one such wave. Accounts that are compromised may not know they are compromised as they rely on posting authority through myriad dapps, which does not inform them something is wrong when the hacker changes their keys. It usually takes up to a week for an account to notice they are hacked and their funds are being moved. If they lose a quarter of their powered up STEEM the results to those investors and to the retention of same would be devastating. There's this perception that most phishing victims are new users with no investment. That's false. Most of the victims were active for months if not years and either accumulated or invested their stake. The largest hack (irrecoverable) was about 36k STEEM and the next one down, from an account that then invested and became a whale, was 10k. The opt-in should have a timer of at least 7 days but preferably 30 days, same as other key functions, before the opt-in takes effect. That would add another layer of protection.

Other forms of exploitation that we like to call "abuse" are highly likely to occur but shouldn't preclude implementation. Removal of a capability to halt a potential minor risk isn't the correct response in my opinion. I treat phishing/hacking as a major risk, for the record. Those who haven't been victims yet may disagree but anyone can be next.

At the same time the 4 week schedule holds merit for advanced users who know how to safeguard and monitor their wallets and are active traders. Tying up capital that can be used for trading is pretty stupid. Tying up capital is however necessary to outfit projects and to obviously perform basic functions like curation with any level of enjoyment. Those same advanced users should arguably have the capability to swap their trustee account and recover themselves if compromised.

Whether a divestment schedule change can attract investors is another matter. We're assuming that it will. It's going to take developer hours and a hardfork, both of which are expensive for everyone already invested and involved. Granted it can be bundled with the next planned fork, which would make it more acceptable to the ventures. It's still going to take time from the development team no matter how the code will be approached.

We need to answer the following before we start to the best of our ability:

What quantifiable estimate of value is it projected to add?
How will this change be communicated to new investors?
Will it cause rapid divestment by the current investors?

$1.33

thecryptodrive (70) · 5 years ago

I don't think we need to baby customers too much, there is inherent hack risk in crypto, bitcoin is way more popular than Steem and has no such safeguards. My ideal implementation would be 4 weeks defacto but have advanced features to increase number of weeks per individual choice, however this will make the code for this HF more complex and we want to keep it light because of SMT complexity already, big risk adding complicated changes to this HF.

$0.00

guiltyparties (70) · 5 years ago

I would agree except we are onboarding mainstream users.

$0.00

therealwolf (75) · 5 years ago

$0.00

Reveal Comment

cryptoastronaut (57) · 5 years ago

Why should it take developers time to change a number in the code "13" to the number 4, instead. I'm sorry it might be slightly more difficult than that, but not by much. Seems like it could be done in a few days, at most.

Posted using Partiko Android

$0.00

guiltyparties (70) · 5 years ago

There are things that can conflict as a result. Although it seems simple its not.

$0.00

therealwolf (75) · 5 years ago (edited)

Update: I'm not exactly strongly in favor, but I find it acceptable, as long as we're working on a solution that brings a more dynamic solution in the near future.

~~I'm not in favour.~~

Reducing it without thinking further is a move without any hindsight on what Steem is supposed to be. I'm not arguing that 13 weeks power-down is a stupid thing to have at this point in time, but reducing it to 4 weeks is just as stupid.

The same goes for this post. You don't start a discussion by initiating a vote. You start a discussion by stating the problem. And the problem is that the 13 weeks powerdown doesn't provide enough incentives, but removing it would hurt Steem just as well, or at least remove an important safety feature.

It is good to have Steem that is locked away for some period of time. Both for the individual and for the currency. It gives people that have locked away their Steempower some kind of safety due to the prolonged time until the currency becomes liquid fully. And on the other hand, it gives the community leverage over big stakeholders, as well as stakeholders more time to think, instead of acting on emotional decisions.

So, to summarize my stance:

I'm against this proposal or any proposal that simply wants to remove/reduce the powerdown period, without including future plans
I'm in favour of a dynamic staking period of Steem (also called Steempower), with ever-increasing incentives (similar to what dan larimer wrote here) If someone believes in STEEM and wants to lock it up for 2 or 5 years (because that's how long it takes for things to truly settle), why shouldn't we let them and give them a nice incentive on top of it?
I'm also very strongly in favour of a discussion on the future of the Steem currency. Do we need SBD? Should we have staked STEEM instead of Steempower? Should rewards earned by the rewards-pool have a longer staking period? (e.g. 1 year) Fact is: this currency was developed by people who were smart but not perfect. Removing things we don't like, without questioning the core philosophy will result in a currency that's as wonky as the tower of Pisa.

$0.78

14 votes

guiltyparties (70) · 5 years ago

Dynamic staking would be a good idea. An investor committing to a higher divestment period than minimally necessary is taking a risk and showing their commitment to Steem. They should receive some sort of a reward for this.

$0.25

therealwolf (75) · 5 years ago

The current system forces everyone to stake it for 13 weeks or lose out on massive APR, which obviously results in frustration. I'm pretty sure that investors like @theycallmedan, who is thinking in years - not months - would stake it for 1-2 years or maybe even longer.

thecryptodrive (70) · 5 years ago

I’m not in favour of multiple pools, as I mentioned above Steem is a different animal to EOS, we provide a simple normie friendly gateway to crypto, multiple pools with different staking cycles make the cognitive load immense, also as I said traditional shareholders of stocks don’t normally have a lockup period and still vote for the good of the company and don’t need to be imprisoned in their stakeholding to be invested.

A long lockup period shows weakness imo, even 4 weeks shows that we are scared our coin will dump so we have this 4 week buffer in place, it is however better than 13 weeks.

I like your suggestion to also think around other economic aspects such as whether we should continue to have SBD, if it remains broken and unpegged it is an embarrassment and should likely be deprecated, we should discuss that as well as a separate topic.

$0.00

therealwolf (75) · 5 years ago

I’m not in favour of multiple pools, as I mentioned above Steem is a different animal to EOS, we provide a simple normie friendly gateway to crypto, multiple pools with different staking cycles make the cognitive load immense, also as I said traditional shareholders of stocks don’t normally have a lockup period and still vote for the good of the company and don’t need to be imprisoned in their stakeholding to be invested.

The vesting shares name and period were most likely created due to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lock-up_period

And I completely disagree with you there. It's the UIs job to make it as easy as possible, while the underlying tech can have more complexity to it. And having different staking periods, with different ROIs is actually very easy to understand.

A long lockup period shows weakness imo, even 4 weeks shows that we are scared our coin will dump so we have this 4 week buffer in place, it is however better than 13 weeks.

No. It's just as bad. It's a different number, but the reasoning behind it is the same.

And again, you're forgetting the security aspect.

wikitextbot (46) · 5 years ago

Lock-up period
A lock-up period, also known as a lock in, lock out, or locked up period, is a predetermined amount of time following an initial public offering where large shareholders, such as company executives and investors representing considerable ownership, are restricted from selling their shares.
Generally, a lock-up period is a condition of exercising an employee stock option. Depending on the company, the IPO lock-up period typically lasts between 90–180 days before these shareholders are allowed the right, but not the obligation, to exercise the option.
Lockups are designed to prevent insiders from liquidating assets too quickly after a company goes public.

$0.00

thecryptodrive (70) · 5 years ago

Just to clarify would you be more in favour of a system where poweredup SP would have a shorter vesting period than earned SP? That would be a middle ground but unfortunately will require more coding than simply changing a parameter.

$0.00

therealwolf (75) · 5 years ago

Multiple staking periods. And I'm not going to agree on middle grounds, the same way I didn't agree on your terms for the SPS funding origin.

smooth (70) · 5 years ago

Should we have staked STEEM instead of Steempower?

What is the difference?

$0.00

therealwolf (75) · 5 years ago

Staked STEEM would be the same currency, similar to how STEEM behaves within the savings feature. Steempower aka vesting shares is a completely different currency.

smooth (70) · 5 years ago

I don't think the typical end user would see any difference other than the word "Staked" used instead of the word "Power". I'm not at all convinced one word is better than the other.

Most already perceive SP to be the same currency as STEEM in the sense of 1:1 value plus a little interest.

$0.00

therealwolf (75) · 5 years ago

I actually don't mind the word Steempower, but is there actually a need to have a separate currency in the form of vesting-shares?

$0.00

svamiva (60) · 5 years ago

Having that we might make the next step and introduce the internal Steem/SP market, which should remove all the frustration coming from the longer lock up period.

$0.00

ecoinstant (68) · 5 years ago

This seems like an elegant, and almost weird loophole, would this make Lock up almost semi-irrelevant?

svamiva (60) · 5 years ago

Yes, that's the idea)

$0.00

barton26 (56) · 5 years ago

Less confusion for new users, I would imagine. "Staked STEEM" is a lot more intuitive to a new user than a whole different name for the same thing (SP).

$0.00

mattclarke (68) · 5 years ago

I had hoped to launch an SMT with 260 week powerdown in 5 instalments (paid out annually), and nothing else liquid. Curation, author rewards and any initial airdrops and sales would all come powered up; so there'd be no opportunity to buy or sell the token for the first 12 months.
All SMTs will be 13 weeks, though; which is a pity.
Maybe next fork.

$0.00

steem-net-ph (36) · 5 years ago

Is this idea of @thecryptodrive getting any serious traction @therealwolf?

I don't know why @thecryptodrive offered this in such a rush and NEVER addressed your valid points and good ideas.

Either he's not thinking clear, not taking time to thoroughly address your comments @therealwolf or something else that I cannot imagine.

Dynamic staking would be an improvement IMO but cutting the 13 week Power Down with an ax without keeping a good incentive to take for a long period of time is not.

$0.00

thecryptodrive (70) · 5 years ago

I’ve addressed everything in my comments throughout this thread, the fact is for this HF we can’t do anything fancy other than a parameter change from 13 to 4 weeks. It is already a code heavy HF due to SMT’s being added and adding complexity can introduce critical bugs.

I am only proposing a change to the length of period, fancy stuff can be done in a future HF. Steemit doesn’t have time to code anything fancy and there are many people who don’t want to delay the HF.

If we don’t take this opportunity to reduce the stake window likely we will have to wait another 6 months to a year for another HF.

Yes this proposal is getting traction, it is #1 on the proposals list with over 17 million SP behind it. That should be a good indicator of community sentiment towards it.

$0.00

steem-net-ph (36) · 5 years ago

Is it possible to downvote the proposal or does it only calculate the upvotes?

$0.00

steem-net-ph (36) · 5 years ago

Btw, you said that we can't do anything fancy in this next hardfork since Steemit Inc. Is doing SMT's but what do you call SMT's?

SMT's are already "fancy" and there's no need to throw a wrench in the progress by shortening the Power Down time when investors who want to buy Steem like Bitcoin ALREADY CAN!

That's what liquid Steem is for.

$0.00

thecryptodrive (70) · 5 years ago (edited)

I mean no fancy code changes, all I propose is change from 13 weeks to 4 weeks, no other dual pool ideas and things. That can be done for this HF.

$0.00

steem-net-ph (36) · 5 years ago

Ah okay.

I still disagree with fixing it in a rush like that but I get what you were saying now 👍

$0.00

steem-net-ph (36) · 5 years ago

Please address more people who are not thinking this through @therealwolf.

I personally believe we are on track for a 100x to 1,000x run starting a month or two before the next Bitcoin Halvening just like last time..

But axing the 13 week Power Down instead of initiating dynamic staking could throw a wrench in it and surrender the Steem blockchain to exchanges 😧

$0.00

thecryptodrive (70) · 5 years ago

I wish we had a 100x bullrun, the issue is we can’t rely on past data, Steem was newer then. and was touted to be the facebook/reddit killer, the market is somewhat disillusioned about Steemit.com never really improving in 3 years, and it is now longer a novel concept, as much as i wish for such a run, I’m not naive enough to believe it. A 2x run is possible but maybe after jan 2020, things will slow now for end of year.

$0.00

steem-net-ph (36) · 5 years ago

I don't call it niave to believe that Steem will run, and even 100x its current price around the time of the Bitcoin halvening.

I think it's actually obvious that it will happen when you compare Steem's current market cap to the market cap of Ethereum at $34 Billion yet it doesn't even have its own blockchain-based social network.

In fact, I think it was naive to think that having a shorter Power Down time would have prevented the previous downturn, and I also think it's niave to think that investors are being prevented from buying Steem due to the long staking time when anyone can buy Steem immediately without staking, just like Bitcoin.

P.S. I checked @therealwolf's comments and you never addressed his statements.. there was even one of his replies that was greyed out due to a downvote. You addressed the people in favor of your "proposal" though.

$0.00

chrisrice (59) · 5 years ago

Do you still think it's naive to believe that Steem will run 100x from it's previous low of $0.11 USD?

$0.00

fsm-liquid (48) · 5 years ago (edited)

In my opinion it's a horrible idea.

When an account is compromised with 4 week powerdown worst case scenario if it's recovered on day 28+ all its stake whether it's powered up or not are stolen (Is it even worth recovering anymore?). Even if its recovered day 7+ after it's stolen it loses at least 25% of its powered up stake while with our current powerdown period at worst case when it's recovered on day 28+ it only loses 4/13 of its powered up stake, a little more than 30%. After 30 days of course you lose the account to the hacker on both cases.
Shortening powerdown is also bad because how our hardfork works. 4 weeks is not too bad (still worse than 13 weeks), but 1 week is plain horrible. If it's only 1 week exchanges will undoubtedly start voting for witnesses. You say our powerdown period is too long compared to EOS but they are having a huge governance problem. Even Dan Larimer is proposing staking pools with up to 10 years(!) lockup period and the 3 day lockup EOS tokens have 0 vote for BPs, the minimum lockup to have any vote for BPs is 3 month, pretty close with Steem right now and it seems like it won't have gradual weekly powerdown like Steem has. If an "investor" can't even commit to their "investment" for 13 weeks do they even can be counted as "invested" in the chain? If they just want to speculate on STEEM price that's what liquid STEEM is for, hold those instead.
The instant powerdown with burn fee is even more horrible idea. Now instead of losing 25% of your powered up stake each week when your account is compromised you lose 100% right away, GG!
However, I agree that in order to participate in PoB someone shouldn't be forced to lock up their capital for 13 weeks.

Here are my proposed changes instead:

2 separate staking pools
The first pool has 1 week powerdown (even better than 1 month) and the second pool has 13 weeks powerdown
Entitlements of the first pool: VP and RC
Entitlements of the second pool: VP, RC, Witness vote, SPS vote, etc. (The benefits of SP right now).
Delegations works as if the pools are mixed. (You can delegate 210 STEEM away if you have 100 STEEM staked on the first pool and 110 STEEM staked on the second pool). Delegations delegate VP and RC like how it works right now and will interact with the RC delegation pool however it works in the next hardfork.
SP reward on posts can go to first pool or the second according to witness consensus. The name of each pool should be discussed with the community (only one of them keeps the name SP).
Stake on first pool can be converted to the second pool instantly but not the other way around (similar to Dan Larimer's proposal).
Current SP can be converted to first pool or the second pool on hardfork according to witness consensus. Each has their benefits and drawbacks. If it's converted to the first pool non-committed people gets weeded out really fast as they won't be converting their stake into the second pool but witness votes basically reset to zero and may cause instability in governance and block production for a short term. Converting to second pool is safer but will take 13 week correction time until it shows the results of the previous way. Of course we can assign a ratio too (like 90% goes to the first pool and 10% goes to the second pool) and have the benefits of both but needs a little longer implementation time.
When these separate pools is implemented I think making the second pool powerdown period even longer than 13 week can be considered if we want to see more committed witness voters and more protection when an account is compromised.

Yes, these changes will be complicated to code but I think this is the way to go instead of simply reducing the powerdown period to please the so-called "investors" which in my opinion is very shortsighted .

That's my thoughts on this.

$0.54

8 votes

smooth (70) · 5 years ago (edited)

Way too complicated IMO. Just not worth even close to that level of mechanism for something (lock up) that is very minor to the platform overall.

If someone were building a system like Steem today it would not have 13 week lockup and certainly would not have the 2 year lockup that was originally there (and for which reducing to 13 weeks was proposed as a compromise). It would probably have a few days to possibly a few weeks of lockup, or maybe none.

These were experimental ideas, worth a try, but really did not demonstrate any clear benefits, did not catch on more broadly, and should be left behind.

$1.08

therealwolf (75) · 5 years ago

Good point you've made about the safety issue regarding power-down time. Also, having two separate staking pools is too rigid and we should have more than that. 13 weeks was a somewhat random number. Having a dynamic range (e.g. 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, 12 months, 2 years, 5 years) would satisfy more people.

5 votes

fsm-liquid (48) · 5 years ago

I mean at least it's still more flexible than just 1 staking pool we have right now. With those dynamic ranges I am guessing you want to incentive longer staking the same way in Dan's proposal? In my opinion there will be conflict of interest between 1 month stakers and 5 years stakers as 5 year stake have so much leverage against shorter stakers with less tokens invested and it will be way more complicated to implement and for users to undestand especially new ones, we have nowhere near as much capital as BlockOne for development, testing, and educating users. The two separate pools is compromise between our current one and Dan's proposal.
13 week is arbitrary, so does 1 month and 2 years previously. 7 day voting window is arbitrary too. Arbitrary =/= bad. For the second pool period if the consensus thinks it's too long then shorten it next HF, if it's too short then prolong it next HF while the first pool period will simply follow the voting window period.

$0.00

therealwolf (75) · 5 years ago

With those dynamic ranges I am guessing you want to incentive longer staking the same way in Dan's proposal? In my opinion there will be conflict of interest between 1 month stakers and 5 years stakers as 5 year stake have so much leverage against shorter stakers with less tokens invested

If someone decides to lock their tokens up for 5 years, then they obviously should have a higher return on their investment, than somebody who locks it up for 1 month. That's simple incentive theory.

fsm-liquid (48) · 5 years ago

Sure, but having multitude of pools like that still overcomplicates the implementation and horrible for user friendliness. It's not worth it at all to implement it like that even when voters acts ideally imo. To which pool does SP rewards on posts and curation even go?

$0.00

therealwolf (75) · 5 years ago

Just because you might find it too complicated, isn't nearly a good enough reason to be against multiple pools. Steem can and should be complicated, the frontends shouldn't be and its their job to make it as simply as possible with their UX & UI.

The average user should only know: "rewards earned by posting & curating take x-months to power-down" and I can decide to stake my STEEM for 6 months to earn 10% APR or 2 years to earn 20% APR (rough example, numbers are random)

fsm-liquid (48) · 5 years ago

No, I don't think it's too complicated for me. Why do you think I think so?
What I'm concerned is the implementation will be significantly harder than having only two pools. We are nowhere near as big as BlockOne so we need to be more efficient. More efforts dedicated to implement the multiple pools are efforts not dedicated to improve, say, SMT v2 or other upgrades. It's up to you witnesses in the end.
I understand why you want multiple pools like Dan's proposal, you seems like the type who will stake whatever the maximum period to me.

How long SP-earned-on-posts-and-curation power down period do you think is the best?

$0.00

thecryptodrive (70) · 5 years ago

That’s how bank term deposits work yes.

$0.00

quantumdeveloper (57) · 5 years ago

I think there also should be an option to have it powered up forever.

$0.00

thecryptodrive (70) · 5 years ago

Yes I am all for a dynamic range, I would like to be able to set longer periods for the Steem I intend to hodl. The 4 weeks baseline is still good, we have even people asking for as low as one week in comments here. 4 weeks is also a familiar lockup period much like a 30 day term deposit.

$0.00

sepracore (62) · 5 years ago (edited)

Just thinking out loud here, but could a security feature be implemented that would only allow an account to send powered down steem to a beneficiary account specified by the user unless a certain length of time passes. For instance, you could set a beneficiary account called @beneficiary or whatever. If you power down steem, that steem could only be sent to @beneficiary for 3 months. That way someone would have to hack two accounts to gain the funds and this would reduce the security risk for instant power downs. Once you transfer the funds to @beneficiary, they are unlocked and free to go anywhere, such as exchanges, etc.

And while more complicated, maybe it isn’t all that much more complicated for the general masses while still maintaining security?

$0.07

thecryptodrive (70) · 5 years ago

Little bit complicated, also if the hacker gets the active key they can change that power down recipient account, unless u put it on a timer that takes 30 days to effect such change, a two account security feature may be too many keys for the average joe to think about and potentially lose. Currently there are vesting routes you can set with the active key.

$0.00

lordbutterfly (70) · 5 years ago

The reasoning behind your comment is plain stupid. Sry. 99% of cryptos don't have a 13 week powerdown and they function perfectly well. Security? You offered such a fringe example that happens in 0.1% of cases here.

The 13 week powerdown is extremely detrimental to the price of steem and offers basically nothing.
Adjustment could be made for the person staking to stake for however long he wants or 2f authorization added.

All those things can be added as long as the 13 week powerdown is eliminated.

That's the single biggest culprit in steem being at 80th in mc

$0.00

fsm-liquid (48) · 5 years ago

Do you not even notice that I propose 1 week powerdown alongside 13 weeks powerdown? I just want the 1 week lockup to not have any voting power for witnesses and proposals. if it's possible to keep PoB from being gamed without lockup at all then the 1 week powerdown can be eliminated.

In Steem we use our keys an awful lot compared to other cryptos. When this chain become more popular, if that ever happens, incentives to steal accounts will be way bigger than now, Compromised accounts will still be fringe cases but will happen a lot more often. 2F auth doesn't protect anyone that got their key(s) compromised unless it's implemented on blockchain level.

If custom stake period is implemented I want staked STEEM have vote weights for witnesses and proposals proportional to the stake period.

$0.00

steem-ph (59) · 5 years ago

If someone doesn't want to stake their Steem for 13 weeks, can't they just buy liquid Steem?

I think you forgot to mention that Steem CAN be bought, just like any other liquid crypto like Bitcoin.

That is what liquid Steem is for and IMO there should be a clear distinction between liquid Steem and Steem Power.

$0.00

thecryptodrive (70) · 5 years ago

Steem needs to be simple for users, we cater for more normies than EOS does so we shouldn’t get too complicated, Dan tends to make things too convoluted and technical for the average user. We already have 3 currencies on Steem, adding an extra pool is akin to having 4. I don’t think a 4 week pd schedule will create a governance issue, take for example a major shareholder in a real world company stock, there is no lockup period traditionally unless that was the terms given in a buyout or something but that won’t be common, investors in such stocks still exercise their voting rights for the good of their investment same as if you own a property in s body corporate, you can sell it anytime but doesn’t mean while you hold the property you will make malicious voting decisions at meetings.

The issue with EOS and alot of crypto is the quality of investors, no matter if the lockup is short or long, a bad acting large stakeholder can still help mess up the project.

For myself a short or long time period won’t change my decision making process, my investment in Steem is my time over the years that makes me invested.

I do like your point about the burn being a huge security risk and defeats the object of the security feature of the 30 day recovery period.

I also urge users to split their stake across multiple accounts and for ease of use can delegate to the main account. Having as shorter pd period can help users decentralise their holdings in this manner for increased security.

$0.00

fsm-liquid (48) · 5 years ago

Steem needs to be simple for users, I agree. That's why I concede at two pools instead of Dan's wacky amount of pools. Normie users actually doesn't need to learn about the extra pool at all. If SP rewards for posts and curation goes to the first pool then they don't need to learn about the second pool unless they are interested in voting for witnesses and proposals. If it goes to the second pool users don't need to learn about the first pool unless they actively don't want witness and proposal voting power and prefer faster power down and don't mind the lower security. The choice depends whether you (witnesses) consider witness and proposal voting a "normie feature" or not. Users only forced to learn about both pools if post and curation rewards goes to both pools which I'm strongly against. While we are at it, I'm also proposing disabling SBD rewards entirely on posts next hardfork as the DAO already provides constant downward pressure to SBD price regardless of the debt ratio, this way normie users don't need to know about SBD unless they are interested about holding this particular stablecoin.

This is a tangent but no lockup in most real life companies is the very reason company's shareholders prioritize short term profits over sustainability and treats their workers pretty badly knowing when in near inevitable crash they can bail right away, even worse after crashing they cry to government to get bailed out to "protect their worker's job" while they have already bailed themselves and became shareholders on other companies (or simply keep their wealth from selling the stocks). Taxpayers get screwed too even though they have nothing to do with the company.
Yes, most stocks in real life companies don't have lockup period but having lockup period for governance voting forces the stakeholder looking at the best interest of the token value at least for the duration of the lockup. We are a blockchain community not companies. We have no workers to exploit as they can simply leave and we have no government to bail us out when we make a lot of bad short term decisions. One of the main reasons we have lockup period at all is so exchanges can't vote, the lower the duration the more vulnerable we are to that and this complements with the security issues I mentioned on the previous post too. Exchanges are not in for long haul, STEEM is just one asset they hold and it's not even theirs.

You agree that quality of investors of crypto is bad but you advocate for shorter lockup? If it's implemented like I proposed we can still market the lowered (1 week) staking period to new investors and if they want to get involved in governance they only allowed to play a long game. Where's the drawback? Most of our bad stakeholders now are due to ninjamine and/or only invested because of bad economics pre-HF21 anyway.

Sure, I believe you are a good actor but you can't just project your behavior to other actors. If a system rely on all its participant to act good it's garbage. Why are you even advocating shorter powerdown period if it doesn't affect your behavior whatsoever?

Yeah, keeping multiple private keys for multiple accounts where an account already have multiple private keys is totally user friendly. How about having a single account with higher security where 100% (or at least significant portion) of your stake doesn't get stolen within the account recovery window?

jphamer1 (59) · 5 years ago

Steemit just needs to stay decentralised and thats pretty much it, oh and keep going. As for the power down i say keep it at 13 weeks. No reason other than in the real world 13 weeks lock up of your investment is nothing and second why encourage volatility in the Steem price.

$0.00

felipejoys (71) · 5 years ago

$0.00

Reveal Comment

brianoflondon (71) · 5 years ago

I'm supporting this and also think the proposal that @theycallmedan has made repeatedly of allowing a penalised quick power down is well worth implementing if the security implications can be thought through properly.

$0.27

therealwolf (75) · 5 years ago (edited)

How would you feel if someone would gain access to your active-key, and could steal all your funds in a week or two, while the bad actor would only lose maybe 20% (or however much is getting burned) from the potential 100%? You might be active around here right now nearly every day, but this is a serious security issue we have to carefully consider.

geekgirl (72) · 5 years ago

You could implement whitelisted accounts that funds can be transferred to that users can set. And maybe also implement 2fa. I would love to see power down lowered to one week. It is much needed and many in favor of.

$0.27

theycallmedan (75) · 5 years ago

Whitelisted withdraw addresses, if the withdraw address is changed, the users funds are locked for x time. And I agree, 2fa would be awesome and also help a lot.

$0.09

thecryptodrive (70) · 5 years ago

2FA and Hardware wallet would be awesome. If we can get Steem listed on exodus wallet we will be one step closer to getting trezor implemented. First we need changelly or shapeshift integration, I should do a proposal for that s it costs around 20K listing fee.

$0.00

steemitqa (64) · 5 years ago (edited)

I've always said we need a hardware solution for Steem. Might help with everything we are talking about now in this post.

$0.00

fsm-liquid (48) · 5 years ago

The bad actor doesn't lose 20%, they gain 80% lmao.

$0.00

thecryptodrive (70) · 5 years ago (edited)

The thing is most other crypto doesn’t have long lockups like Steem, there are other ways to protect your funds like split your stake over multiple accounts, a 4 week vesting period is still more protection than most chains offer, but I think we shouldn’t force long lockups on users and become a nanny state, offer a lower lockup period, long enough to deter exchanges from voting, ie 4 weeks is a good deterrent still, and then allow power users to lockup longer dynamically should they wish. Diff incentives for diff lengths of staking becomes complex and leads to more bugs that can occur, steem should be as simple as possible, SMT’s can be more variable and complex.

Another reason to have a lower lockup is to allow SMT’s to be more flexible to cater for more use cases, since SMT’s can’t have a shorter vesting period than the main token, makes sense to reduce the period on the main token to allow more SMT vesting options.

If exchange voting is s risk there are other ways to deal with that, make it an onchain policy that exchanges can’t vote and use an oracle that has a list of known exchange accounts that are excluded from consensus voting.

Ah and i just realised you were responding to the quick power down burn, I am also no longer in favour of that due to security risk of hacker insta-stealing your funds via the insta withdrawl burn method.

$0.00

thecryptodrive (70) · 5 years ago

Yes I’m in favour of a lowered minimum vesting period with a dynamic options for people who want to lockup longer for security, only reason I didn’t include in the proposal was due to the added complexity, this HF will already be complex due to SMTs.

$0.00

thecryptodrive (70) · 5 years ago

The quick powerdown based on burn was at first glance a cool idea but after more thought it totally circumvents any lockup period security, you might as well not have a lockup period for safety then if a hacker can get into your account and initiate a burn to get all your funds out.

$0.00

brianoflondon (71) · 5 years ago

Surely there could be a simple opt in and people who feel confident in their own ability to secure their accounts can sign up for high speed power down. Obviously after a 13 week wait that would kick and and the account would be marked as available for quicker power downs.

$0.00

thecryptodrive (70) · 5 years ago

Sure anything is possible but adds to complexity of the chain because now you have to store the opt-in state of each account.

$0.00

celestal (71) · 5 years ago

What if you would have to use the Owner Key instead of Active in order to make an instant power down with a burn? This way you wouldn't have to be worried of losing all your funds in case of some getting their hands on your Active Key.

$0.00

proxy.token (54) · 5 years ago

We @proxy.token and KR community actively support your proposal ! Actually we want shorter powerdown period, but the four weeks you suggest could be the first step of that.

Thank you so much for your proposal, @thecrytodrive !!

$0.20

thecryptodrive (70) · 5 years ago

An absolute pleasure, I think 4 weeks is a number most people can get behind and later we can reduce if this proves to be successful. Appreciate your support.

$0.00

jack8831 (74) · 5 years ago (edited)

You did good job, @thecryptodrive. I'm happy I could support you with that proposal.

.... from Mr.Salmon.

$0.06

thecryptodrive (70) · 5 years ago

Thanks so much for your support!

$0.00

proxy.token (54) · 5 years ago (edited)

Your proposal must be passed at last! You did it! Congratuations!
We @proxy.token and KR community are all happy with it.
Thank u, @thecryptodrive.

$0.06

thecryptodrive (70) · 5 years ago (edited)

Yes it has passed with your help, much appreciated. It would be good if a majority of top20 witnesses had also voted it, so far only 8/20 have voted for the change, ultimately witnesses govern the outcome, the purpose of this post was to create a central point to collect votes from both witnesses and the community. The fact that it is at the top of the list shows witnesses that haven't voted that the community is seriously behind such a change. I saw there was a user threatening to unvote witnesses who support the change, perhaps your community could support and vote for witnesses that do vote for the change.

$0.00

thecryptodrive (70) · 5 years ago

Hi @proxy.token I saw you voted some new witnesses which moved my rank out of the top20. I was surprised I didn’t get your vote since we are aligned in improving Steem with the shorter powerdown period and my recent efforts with the @sbdpotato project to try fix the SBD peg. I can’t influence changes if I am not in the top20 so I ask that you consider voting me as well.

$0.00

sepracore (62) · 5 years ago

I am on board. Bottom line is this issue needs to be addressed because all new SMTs created will have the same power down time. If we already know we are going to reduce it from 13 weeks, we need to do it now as opposed to having a SMT Nightmare involving recreating SMTs and trying to airdrop new tokens, etc when we finally shorten the power down period.

$0.13

thecryptodrive (70) · 5 years ago

Yes agreed we need to make the change on the SMT HF.

$0.00

stackin (78) · 5 years ago

4 weeks is a good idea in my opinion 😀

Posted using Partiko iOS

$0.13

steem-ph (59) · 5 years ago

What is the need of decreasing the Power Down period when investors can always invest in liquid Steem at any time if they don't want it locked for 13 weeks?

$0.00

kus-knee (74) · 5 years ago

This would certainly alleviate some fears for potential investors!

Great to have you here building, promoting and guiding Steem @thecryptodrive!

$0.12

ackza (72) · 5 years ago

glad to see u back bro here is 1 peosp @peos privacy on eos token

$0.00

kus-knee (74) · 5 years ago

Good stuff!

$0.00

thecryptodrive (70) · 5 years ago

Thank u @kus-knee.

$0.00

steem-ph (59) · 5 years ago

Can't investors buy liquid Steem at any time without ever having their Steem "locked up for long periods of time"?

$0.00

mindtrap (74) · 5 years ago

I wouldn’t mind if it was reduced to 2 weeks tbh. Or even a week only

$0.11

thecryptodrive (70) · 5 years ago

We can’t go less than one week otherwise can powerdown transfer to another account and vote twice. Some stakeholders don’t feel 2 weeks is enough for funds protection incase of a hack. Personally i would like to see a min period like one week with user defined longer lengths for those who want to lockup funds longer. For simplicity we won’t put that on the table for this HF.

$0.00

smooth (70) · 5 years ago

I feel we could reduce the voting time. Given all of the experiments we've done (12 hours, 24 hours, 30 days, 7 days), the one that seems to have worked the best is 24 hours.

7 days isn't nearly long enough for people who want evergreen rewards, so they need to come up with another solution anyway, and after the first day or two of 7 days, diminishing returns kicks in and the amount of voting goes way down. Later votes are probably disproportionately used by scammers too.

thecryptodrive (70) · 5 years ago

i think 3 days is good enough to cover all timezones and people being offline on weekends.

$0.00

mindtrap (74) · 5 years ago (edited)

Sure we can go to one week. Or even less. All it would take is the implementation of a rule that wouldn’t allow anyone to delegate nor to start a power down procedure unless they have been sitting on 100% VP. Sounds crazy?

$0.00

thecryptodrive (70) · 5 years ago

100% VP is not easy to get to, especially if you delegate regularly, each time i delegate on dlease my VP reduces. But in any event we are wanting to keep the code overhead low for the upcoming HF, it is already very complicated with SMTs being added.

$0.00

preciousadu (46) · 5 years ago

The savings on the wallet can be acting like the current powerdown system I think they should just switch it. Once one save fund come in 13 weeks while power down should be 3days

Posted using Partiko Android

$0.00

steem-ph (59) · 5 years ago

You never addressed the issue of exchanges using some of their deposits to vote on witnesses if the Power Down length is to short.

You also failed to state that investors can invest in liquid Steem, just like any other cryptocurrency like Bitcoin without having to even stake 1 Steem.

$0.00

eirik (69) · 5 years ago (edited)

The best proposal outhere. It can attract many new people that just don't like having their money frozen for so long.

$0.11

thecryptodrive (70) · 5 years ago

Nice, glad u like it!

$0.00

steem-ph (59) · 5 years ago

Can't people buy liquid Steem without ever having it locked in Steem Power?

$0.00

ackza (72) · 5 years ago

I just launched the Infowars Token tribe and enabled scot and staking and i chose 3 days, 1 period, just like eos, because if i have to rely on some staking period of a month of more then it cant stand on its own too legs :) bitcoin has no staking so 3 days will be fine even , for tribe tokens

steem may need at least 7 days to avoid some sort of gaming i think but yeah well see :) Im hoping for Freemium tribe creation and or ENg proposals on @eosdac dac factory for ENG on EOS soon so we can propose good tribe sand get funding foir it

$0.11

thecryptodrive (70) · 5 years ago

I think the ultimate goal would be 7 days but for now I think 4 weeks is a prudent iteration. I woukd also like to see voluntary longer lockups oncase one were to go on holiday and want the security, also not bad to have longer lockups in the face of quantum threat.

$0.00

steem-ph (59) · 5 years ago

I think it would be better to introduce dynamic staking and schedule it for the next hardfork, the one after this next one.

$0.00

steem-ph (59) · 5 years ago

If the ultimate goal is 7 days, what would then be the clear difference between Steem and Steem Power? @thecryptodrive

$0.00

tombstone (63) · 5 years ago

I agree that a shorter staking period would likely make STEEM somewhat more attractive to investors. On the other hand, the security of having a long staking period should not be discounted, especially given that a) active keys are handled frequently, b) there is currently no hardware wallet support, and c) I'm not aware of good options for notification services to help warn users of an unexpected powerdown. Also, taking the experience of EOS into account, we should be concerned about the possibility of exchanges voting with user stake.

With these things in mind, currently I would caution against entertaining anything less than a 4-week powerdown. Even then, I would personally want to see a) some good notification services, and b) a powerdown schedule that is back-end heavy...e.g. 4 increasing weekly powerdowns of 10%, 20%, 30%, and 40%. That way users still get 100% in 4 weeks instead of the current 13 weeks, but the new risks are mitigated fairly substantially, and without adding much complexity, compared to 4 equal weekly powerdowns of 25%.

Lastly, I see the benefits of having some kind of dynamic staking scheme with variable APR, which could enable staking options both shorter and longer than 4 weeks (where longer staking periods would come with more voting power). But obviously this is more complicated and would take more time to come up with the most sensible (and simplest) possible scheme, and to code/test it. Not to mention, I would not favor enabling any staking periods shorter than 4 weeks without first having hardware support in place.

P.S. I get that items such as notifications and hardware support are not core level changes.

thecryptodrive (70) · 5 years ago

@tombstone thanks for your feedback.

I have just added PD notifs to the Ginabot notification service roadmap for you.

I think 4 weeks is perfectly balanced and no need to go lower, if we are worried about exchanges voting we can add an exchange blacklist/oracle that prevents known exchange accounts from voting.

I iike the incremental pd idea over 4 weeks, starting low and increasing but I'm going for the simplest method with least code for this HF which is just a parameter change from 13 to 4 weeks, we can go fancy on next HF if needed.

I can facilitate trezor support, will require proposal approval of 20K USD to list steem on shapeshift, then Exodus wallet can integrate and finally, trezor can support steem with a bit of development cost.

$0.00

steem-ph (59) · 5 years ago

@tombstone and @therealwolf both offered valid suggestions but you rejected all of them in favor of rushing a 4 week Powerdown in this hardfork.

If the issue is with SMTs, why not ask @steemit Inc. to add in a 4 week Power Down option for SMT's?

That might be better.

$0.00

thecryptodrive (70) · 5 years ago

SMT's can't have less of a PD period that the reserve currency STEEM for reasons of not circumventing the parameters of the main token, it is also interesting that you brought that up because by reducing to 4 weeks that gives more options to SMT's down to 4 weeks, otherwise SMT's that use PoB have to have at least 13 weeks staking period and may deter some projects starting on Steem.

steem-ph (59) · 5 years ago

As far as I know, the reason of SMTs not being able to Power Down to less than 13 weeks has nothing to do with it "circumventing the base token" but everything to do with Steemit Inc. not yet creating that feature since they want SMTs to be released ASAP.

As far as I know, shorter timeframes will be possible with future SMT's, even if Steem's Power Down time remained 13 weeks.

P.S. I brought up the SMT issue since I read in one of your comments that it is one of the reasons why you are in favor of a 4 week Power Down for Steem 👍

$0.00

tcpolymath (68) · 5 years ago

Supported. Powerdown time is not a security feature and shouldn't be treated as a security feature. If a security feature is needed, add a feature similar to the current Savings which applies to stake, and prevents it from being powered down for a period of time, preferably user-determined.

thecryptodrive (70) · 5 years ago

Perfect thanks for supporting, I agree users should set own security. But for purposes of this HF code is already complicated with SMT's so looking for easy win of just param change to 4 weeks to minimise risk of critical bugs in this HF.

$0.00

steem-ph (59) · 5 years ago

I actually treat Steem Power as a security feature and its one of the reasons why I chose Steem over Bitcoin.

But I also support the idea of dynamic staking as suggested by @therealwolf and I wouldn't mind if the savings feature allowed longer hold periods.

Having said that, isn't it good to make the staking periods long, so that exchanges have no way of using the Steem deposited by their clients to vote for witnesses, proposals, or to word it another way, their OWN witnesses, and proposals?

I also want to point out that it's obvious, at least to me, that Shorter Powerdown times would not encourage investors to buy Steem since they can already buy Steem with no Power Down times.

It's called Steem (liquid).

$0.00

tcpolymath (68) · 5 years ago

Using things that weren't designed as security features as if they were security features is pretty much the least secure thing you can do. This applies both to keeping Steem Power in order to keep from being hacked and making long power-down times to discourage exchanges from powering up.

Powering up was not made for these purposes and there's no reason to believe it will behave well for these purposes just because it apparently has for you so far. This is like using a ziptie to lock your front door when keyed locks are readily available. Sure, nobody's come along and cut it yet.

$0.00

steem-ph (59) · 5 years ago

Powering up was not made for these purposes and there's no reason to believe it will behave well for these purposes just because it apparently has for you so far.

As far as I know, Powering Up was intentionally made long in order to ensure that the people who vote for witnesses and participate on the social aspects of the Steem blockchain have "skin in the game" and I think that definitely applies to exchanges.

Exchanges barely have any skin in the game since their Steem will be other people's money.

This is like using a ziptie to lock your front door when keyed locks are readily available. Sure, nobody's come along and cut it yet.

Not necessarily.

Sometimes it's possible to use things in ways that they were not intended for, and MANY people are using Steem Power as a form of security.

If you increase the holding time possible on the Savings feature BEFORE you decrease the Power Down time, it would erase the need to use Steem Power as as security feature.

But @thecryptodrive is not planning on doing that and I don't think you are either and your comparison of locking your door with a ziptie is not really valid.

A better comparison would be logging your door with a lock that's just as good as a door lock but not intended for doors but was improvised instead since there were no door locks in the town that you resided in (makes sense).

Think about it...

$0.00

treepi (64) · 5 years ago

1 week or a few days top would be optimal. 13 weeks serves no real purpose now and is a big discourager to powering up.

$0.10

thecryptodrive (70) · 5 years ago

agreed, we can't go less than 7 days cause you can powerdown and power up another account and vote twice. 4 weeks seems to be a prudent figure everyone can get behind, later we can reduce if necessary.

$0.00

bashadow (65) · 5 years ago

I could not find the proposal, perhaps a bit soon for it to show up on the vote list.

I do believe a 4 week time frame would be a grand Idea, I feel this would decrease the amount of stake held in one hand and make it a little more palatable when an investor invested and then decide it just was not for them.

$0.10

thecryptodrive (70) · 5 years ago

Proposal should be right at the bottom, scroll down.

$0.00

steem-ph (59) · 5 years ago

People can invest in Steem now using liquid Steem without ever having to stake.

AND they can also rent Steem Power just to test things out if they want to see if its for them or not.

I personally think this should be more well thought out and I think @therealwolf's suggestion of dynamic staking is better than a 4 week power down.

$0.00

queeirisa (63) · 5 years ago

This is a great idea. So many of us here have thought about this once or more. It would bring in more investors because personally, I think 13 weeks is a very long time.

$0.10

steem-ph (59) · 5 years ago

But couldn't investors with less of an appetite to have their funds locked, just buy liquid Steem instead?

@thecryptodrive is in favor of eventually making it 7 days by the way, which would completely destroy the distinction between Steem and Steem Power.

$0.00

thecryptodrive (70) · 5 years ago

You are assuming, no I am not in favour of making it 7 days, it is what some people have suggested and I have just said we start with 4 weeks and see how that works out, clayop and others are keen for 7 days, I am cautious of that, but open to discussing it. Initially I was quite open to 7 days, but after reading comments here I now stand at 4 weeks being a nice balance.

steem-ph (59) · 5 years ago (edited)

That's actually what I gathered from your comments on this post but I didn't check which of your comments were the most recent @thecryptodrive.

I will respect your most recent views on this and thank you for clarifying.

As much as I am not in favor of a 4 week Power Down I would be much more comfortable with it if we applied @tombstone's idea since 1 week is too short of a timeframe for someone to be able to withdraw 25% of our stakes, especially since we use our active keys often.

The idea of increasing the holding periods that are possible, using the Savings Feature, AND blacklisting exchanges from using SP before they ever have a chance to take control would both make a 4 week Power Down more viable IMO.

But exchanges possibly taking control of the Steem blockchain should not be taken lightly IMO, since once they'd gain full control of the blockchain, it would be nearly impossible to take it back from them.. so rough estimates of a 4 week Power Down being enough to deter them isn't good enough IMO.

Thank you though for letting discuss this with you @thecryptodrive.. if I accidentally misrepresent your views I will always accept your corrections 👍

$0.00

crypto.piotr (70) · 5 years ago

Hello dear friend @thecryptodrive.

I have noticed that each tribe has the possibility to configure its shutdown time, as well as the period for the payout and the distribution of the reward percentage.

User reactions and opinions in this regard should be considered and taken into account, for modifications that may be included in the next HF.

A decrease in shutdown time is necessary. In fact, it is a clamor of users for a long time. Then, the opinion of the users should be taken into account.

A strong investor always wants to feel control over their assets. Having his resources dammed for a period of 13 weeks is not attractive to anyone. Then we will find negative reactions and rejection.

Large crypto investors are looking forward to market behavior and enjoy the flexibility of moving their funds at a given time.

The "hacking protection" speech is over.
The possibility that users can withdraw their assets should not cause negative effects on the price of the currency, on the contrary, this would encourage investment, since very few are willing to compromise their assets for the absurd period of 13 weeks.
Those who trust the blockchain steem will always bring their resources back. They can withdraw them, make their investments and bring it back.

All best, Piotr.

$0.07

thecryptodrive (70) · 5 years ago

Fully agreed with your sentiment. Thanks dear friend @crypto.piotr

$0.00

matt-a (65) · 5 years ago (edited)

Ahh, so close to success! I just voted with the @agoric.systems voting proxy. Looks like you're just 300k SP shy of success! Just resteemed, as well. I'd love to see this happen and as @smooth was say, I echo the sentiment "I'm all down for even 1 week." So glad it isn't YEARS like it was in the beginning haha.

Another idea I liked that someone was tossing around (I forget who it was, maybe @theycallmedan?) was maybe the possibility to opt to go an immediate powerdown at an expense. The expense being, say, burning 5% or 10% of the stake being powered down for an immediate liquid position. That might be steep, I don't know, but I like the idea of having that as an option a lot.

$0.06

thecryptodrive (70) · 5 years ago

Thanks for the vote, I hope the change happens. The burn is dangerous cause if a hacker gets hold of your account he can insta draw out all your SP, also means exchanges can power up and use their clients stake to vote themselves in as witness etc, if they need the liquidity they just burn 5% anytime they want.

$0.00

balte (69) · 5 years ago

You are delegating to an account @mmmmkkkk311 who is downvoting me for nothing! So I will downvote your posts of course!
Best regards!

5 votes

crypto.piotr (70) · 5 years ago

Dear @thecryptodrive

There was also a discussion about adding an instant power down by burning 5-10% of the stake

From user point of view that would be TRAGIC. Powering up means locking your resources for some period of time. Mostly for security reasons (at least that's point of view of a user).

After all even if 3rd party would find a way to sign in with my active or master key, then I don't have to worry that my funds will be completely removed from the account. I have 7 days to notice that power down started and I've 7 days to react.

If instant power down would be available, then my believe that funds on my steem account are safe would be forever gone.

Just like you said:

This has been found to be very dangerous, a hacked account could be instantly drained via this burn mechanism and therefor circumvents any lockup period safety benefits

Yours, Piotr

thecryptodrive (70) · 5 years ago

Correct, I am not endorsing an instant powerdown, I am merely proposing reducing the power down period from 13 to 4 weeks.

$0.00

lordbutterfly (70) · 5 years ago

A big fat YES!

And it should be 1 week. Absolutely no reason why it should not be 1 week.

And the safety feature some are clammoring about .... don't be idiots. That feature is important in 0.01% of cases and does not justify such a long powerdown and losing so many potential investors.
99% of tokens have no staking and they offer satisfactory safety for your funds.
So this is a non argument.

This is the only thing that could potentially save steem. Not the smts not something else... This.
Save our shitty volume, and attract exchanges and investors.

I can't stress enough how important this change would be.

thecryptodrive (70) · 5 years ago

perfect thanks for your support, 4 weeks is a good interim reduction that will not get too much push back, can look at reducing to 1 week on next HF if this proves to be successful. There is however the risk of exchanges then powering up user stake and voting like on EOS, in such a case we can blacklist exchange accounts from voting.

$0.00

steem-ph (59) · 5 years ago

I think you are forgetting that "investors" who don't like staking can already buy liquid Steem, just like they can with Bitcoin @lordbutterlfy.

$0.00

chireerocks (72) · 5 years ago

@thecryptodrive, I am Supporting this and definitely 4 Weeks makes sense both way. Hope that soon this change will be live and running.

You are right and this is discussed many times, 13 Weeks is very long time and many Investors prefer more Liquid Space.

Yes, more complex changes can make things complex. At this moment this Space needs one change at a time to keep everything smooth.

Have a wonderful time ahead and stay blessed.

Posted using Partiko Android

steem-ph (59) · 5 years ago

If investors prefer liquid cryptos, they can always buy Liquid Steem.

I think you forgot about that 😕

$0.00

chireerocks (72) · 5 years ago

Thank you for sharing your inputs. Stay blessed.

$0.00

thecryptodrive (70) · 5 years ago

Perfect thanks so much for your vote!

$0.00

chireerocks (72) · 5 years ago

Welcome and thank you. 🙂

Posted using Partiko Android

$0.00

vikisecrets (68) · 5 years ago (edited)

4 weeks or even shorter is okay 👍 inflation has to be solved too, but this is another topic ;) (SBD and reward pool induced inflation)

onthewayout (59) · 5 years ago

I do not think that your premise for the proposal is proven. It may be correct (or not) but we need data and not take this decision lightly. Since my response is getting too long I decided instead to write a post about it.

thecryptodrive (70) · 5 years ago

I agree with the exchange risk, I think 4 weeks will deter them enough. We can also blacklist exchange accounts from voting as part of steem chain policy. We can't prove whether 4 weeks will stimulate investment, it is a hypothesis, only by testing and experimenting can we prove or disprove the hypothesis and adjust accordingly. 4 weeks is a good starting point.

$0.00

demotruk (69) · 5 years ago

Who would maintain such a blacklist? Are you seriously suggesting that blacklisting votes for witnesses in DPOS is acceptable policy?

$0.00

thecryptodrive (70) · 5 years ago

it is acceptable if it is exchanges imo, who hold user's funds and using them to vote without express permission. blacklist could be witness updated via softfork or something, preferrably consensus based.

$0.00

demotruk (69) · 5 years ago

Active witnesses deciding who can't vote for witnesses, what could possibly go wrong???

$0.00

thecryptodrive (70) · 5 years ago

Point taken, some other general community consensus then like the steemproposals.

$0.00

steem-ph (59) · 5 years ago

We wouldn't be able to blacklist exchanges as easily as you think, especially if they dug in their heals and voted for their own witnesses using the stakes of their depositors.

$0.00

crypto.piotr (70) · 5 years ago

Hi @thecryptodrive

I've decided to check out your profile to see if you posted anything interesting lately. And I was wondering - why you're so quiet?

Hope you didn't give up on Steemit yet.
Yours, Piotr

thecryptodrive (70) · 5 years ago

Hey friend, I am active behind the scenes. I have a personal project @sbdpotato which i do posts on everyday and still involved in BuildTeam with dlease.io and Ginabot and a few services.

crypto.piotr (70) · 5 years ago

Thx for your reply @thecryptodrive. I've never heard about @sbdpotato - will check this project right away.

Is dlease popular after hf21?

ps.
May I ask you for little favour? I'm not sure if I did ask you about it already or not (hope I'm not repeating myself).

Could you please check out also my recent post if you have few min and share your thoughts on questions related to concept of "introducing steem blockchain to businesses":
https://steemit.com/steemleo/@crypto.piotr/my-very-first-trip-to-switzerland-one-of-the-most-crypto-and-blockchain-friendly-place-on-the-planet-earth

Your feedback is always appreciated ;) And I will upvote most valuable comment with 100-200k SP coming from project.hope account.
Yours, Piotr

thecryptodrive (70) · 5 years ago

Cool no problem, just voted and commented.

Yeah Dlease.io is still popular, with 3200+ active leases, only the interest earned has dropped to around 12%.

$0.00

Link: https://steemit.com/hive-175254/@project.hope/3-ways-of-joining-our-efforts-project-hope-economy-explained

crypto.piotr (70) · 5 years ago

Good morning @thecryptodrive

I just realized that I never thanked you for your previous comment. BIG THX! :)

ps.
Also - would you mind if I take few minutes of your time? (I hope I'm not asking this question to often ;)

Anyway .... together with few core members of project.hope team - we'te trying to promote our recent publication: an article explaining economy behind our non-profit community project build on STEEM blockchain.

Perhaps I could ask you to spare few minutes and check it out and share your feedback with me.

I would absolutely appreciate it a lot. I read all comments and I drop solid upvote on each valuable one.

Yours, Piotr

$0.00

throwbackthurs (47) · 5 years ago

@thecryptodrive there are thousands of stolen keys floating around this blockchain so a periodic key change should also be addressed. Please look into this as I have no real voice on this platform at the moment https://steemit.com/spam/@throwbackthurs/steemengineteam-leading-lambs-to-the-slaughter

thecryptodrive (70) · 5 years ago

periodic key change is not a bad idea, like an annual password reset, also has risk of user locking himself out on key change :)

$0.00

nextgen622 (71) · 5 years ago

Yes, exactly what we need.

steem-ph (59) · 5 years ago

Why do we need to decrease the Power Down time for "investors"?

Anyone and everyone already has the option of buying liquid Steem without it ever getting staked.

$0.00

artgirl (66) · 5 years ago

So is this proposal still good even after the edit statement related to hacking? 🤔 Is that a minor thing?

Posted using Partiko Android

thecryptodrive (70) · 5 years ago

Yeah still good, the edit was related to having a feature to pay like 5% Steem burn for insta powerdown, that is dangerous. 4 weeks pd is fine

$0.00

artgirl (66) · 5 years ago

Ok. :)

$0.00

geekgirl (72) · 5 years ago

Four weeks is still too long. It should be lowered to one week.

martie7 (62) · 5 years ago

3 seconds will be fine, but then we don’t need any steem power. We will just have steems only.

$0.00

steem-ph (59) · 5 years ago

Exactly 😂

What's the point of decreasing the staking time for Steem Power if we already have liquid Steem?

$0.00

timcliff (73) · 5 years ago

I’m in support, although not necessarily as part of the next hardfork. I’m not a hard no on that, but I’m concerned about adding complexity and risk to an already complex and risky hardfork (SMTs).

thecryptodrive (70) · 5 years ago

Sure valid point, however it will just be a parameter change coupled with a cancellation of existing pd's so risk is low. We want to reduce number of HF's to not upset exchanges, imo next HF is still a good time, please vote for this proposal if you are in support.

$0.00

timcliff (73) · 5 years ago

done

$0.00

thecryptodrive (70) · 5 years ago

Cool thank u!

$0.00

chrisrice (59) · 5 years ago

I dislike this proposal.

One of the reasons why I chose Steem is because I can lock it up for 13 weeks.

Posted using Partiko Android

$0.00

contrabourdon (70) · 5 years ago

Great idea @thecryptodrive.
@untersatz curate 100

Posted using Partiko iOS

$0.00

untersatz (54) · 5 years ago

This post has been upvoted by witness @untersatz. You've done a great job!
^{The @untersatz witness and manual curation is under the guidance of @contrabourdon and @organduo.}^{Current VP: 69.52%}

$0.00

steem-ph (59) · 5 years ago

Why do you think it's a great idea?

$0.00

enginewitty (72) · 5 years ago

With all the people powering down and struggling with the #newsteem protocols, I'm not sure this is the best time to implement it. I'm all for it, but feel the timing is off.

$0.00

thecryptodrive (70) · 5 years ago

I think if stakeholders wanted to exit they would have done so already, many have been here way longer than 13 weeks.

$0.00

kingscrown (81) · 5 years ago

i like this

$0.00

witnessnews (2) · 5 years ago

This post has been resteemed by @witnessnews.

Follow @witnessnews to keep up with active witness updates.

$0.00

jennyferandtony (54) · 5 years ago

Hi,i am a verry verry new user and never use cryptocurenci .
I read coment were people complain for the long time,other not good if are short time , other to hold 2 3 year the power down.
My matematic are diferent for example if you have 100 power and want to power down you are alow to do only 5% , 100-5%=5 and 5:13=0,3846 a week and if make 13 x19 =247 weeks and this in my mint are 5 years or not ?

$0.00

thecryptodrive (70) · 5 years ago

I'm not 100% sure what you are saying but the current powerdown period is 13 weeks, this proposal seeks to reduce it to 4 weeks, that is all for now to keep it simple.

$0.00

martie7 (62) · 5 years ago

There was also a discussion about adding an instant power down by burning 5-10% of the stake

Nice idea to burn more steem!

$0.00

thecryptodrive (70) · 5 years ago

We decided that was a bad idea for account security, if your account gets hacked, hacker can burn to get all funds out.

$0.00

lordbutterfly (70) · 5 years ago (edited)

Add another layer of security then. This should most definitely be a feature. Catering to those very few irresponsible to the detriment of the whole platform is extremely foolish.
And they are very very few.

$0.00

thecryptodrive (70) · 5 years ago

@guiltyparties deals with lots of hack incidents and it is more rife than I thought. Extra layer of security would have to be 2FA or hardware wallet but that is not very easy to implement, especially integrating with a hardware wallet.

$0.00

binkyprod (67) · 5 years ago

Definitely in favour. When you Power Down, that Steem is then somewhere and nowhere and anything can happen during that time. If anything were to happen and you were to lose that Steem, the longer it's in that limbo place, the higher chances of losing that Steem. I get that it would incetivise people to keep that Steem as Steem Power, but some people need that Steem, either for purchases on the Steem blockchain, or because it's their income. Reduced power down time means increased security of actually getting that Steem as Steem at the end of that fourth week.

$0.00

contrabourdon (70) · 5 years ago

@organduo

Posted using Partiko iOS

$0.00

project7 (73) · 5 years ago

Agreed and voted from Steemhunt! Thanks for the great proposal.

$0.00

joeypark (74) · 5 years ago

I absolutely agree with you!

$0.00

quantumdeveloper (57) · 5 years ago

How can having more short term investors who try to squeeze as much value as they can out of the steem until they leave at the first sign of trouble(thus intensifying every price drop) in any way aid the value of steem?

$0.00

thecryptodrive (70) · 5 years ago

That’s the reality of investing, same happens on BTC they dump when they see risk ahead and buy again when things are looking positive, the point is they keep creating liquidity and market activity, with a long pd cycle we will have stagnant market conditions and we will make steem less attractive for both long and short term investors.

$0.00

steem-ph (59) · 5 years ago

That's not true.. Steem is liquid!

It's only Steem Power that's stake and anyone and everyone already has the option of entering and exiting Steem as they please?

Just like Bitcoin.. there is no need to stake if a user is just a trader.

$0.00

steemitboard (66) · 5 years ago

Congratulations @thecryptodrive! You have completed the following achievement on the Steem blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :

Your post was the most commented on one day

_{You can view your badges on your Steem Board and compare to others on the Steem Ranking}
_{If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word STOP}

To support your work, I also upvoted your post!

Vote for @Steemitboard as a witness to get one more award and increased upvotes!

$0.00

demotruk (69) · 5 years ago

I'm sorry to the witnesses whom I've supported for a long time but I can't keep voting for you guys if you support this proposal. To me removing the long term commitment aspect of Steem Power would be the antithesis of what Steem is about.

$0.00

thecryptodrive (70) · 5 years ago

4 weeks is still rather a long lock-up period, Whaleshares has a very long staking period and afaik hasn't really helped them much. People should take the long-term view voluntarily rather than forcefully at blockchain level. If the concern is that existing investors would divest, they have had plenty of time to do so already, especially those here since 2016, they have had many full 13 week cycles as opportunity to divest fully.

$0.00

demotruk (69) · 5 years ago

4 weeks provides no financial incentive at all for voters to be concerned for how their voting affects the long term value of their investment - they can always divest within 4 weeks and have little incentive to bed concerned for the long term health of the network. Unlike Bitcoin, there is no investment in physical hardware that will become worthless if the network does; there needs to be some other mechanism for tying voters interest to the long term health of the network

$0.00

thecryptodrive (70) · 5 years ago

Not sure, for myself it doesn't matter, I wouldn't dump my SP even if the vesting period was shorter. It comes down to us wanting people who want to be here voluntarily rather than people who are stuck here because of long vesting period, i would rather those people be gone.

$0.00

steem-ph (59) · 5 years ago

People DO take the long-term lockup volunterily.

Everyone that doesn't want their Steem staked, can simply buy liquid Steem.

$0.00

wongbraling (66) · 5 years ago

Thats an interesting idea. But what will affect the price of steaks? because the time to draw 'deposit' steem power was made short which previously was 13 weeks to 4 weeks. Indeed, for a personal scale like me, it can be profitable. But what about the impact on the big scale steak?
By the way, I aggree about reduce power down period to 4 weeks :)

$0.00

thecryptodrive (70) · 5 years ago

I don't understand, i don't think the price of Steem/SP will change, just the staking period will change. The voting power and utility of the stake remains the same.

$0.00

crypto.piotr (70) · 5 years ago

Dear @thecryptodrive

Any clue where of 13 weeks power down came from in the first place? there must be a reason why it's 13, not 4. Just curious

Yours
Piotr

$0.00

abitcoinskeptic (73) · 5 years ago

52 weeks in a year means 13 weeks is 1/4year. 4 weeks means 1/13 a year.
It's not a coincidence =)

$0.00

crypto.piotr (70) · 5 years ago

Dear @abitcoinskeptic

I just realized that I never read and thanked you for this comment. Somehow I've skipped it. So ... late thx :)

ps.
May I ask you for little favour? I'm not sure if I did ask you about it already or not (hope I'm not repeating myself).

Your feedback is always appreciated ;) And I will upvote most valuable comment with 100-200k SP coming from project.hope account.
Yours, Piotr

$0.00

tradingideas (83) · 5 years ago

4 weeks is still long. I prefer 1 week.
I think a long period of unstaking is not helpful to people who want to invest steem. And also Steem should introduce a way to burn the already issued coins.

$0.00

thecryptodrive (70) · 5 years ago

I don't think many people will vote for 1 week due to risk of losing all funds in a hack.

$0.00

steem-ph (59) · 5 years ago

There is always the option of buying liquid Steem.

And I see no reason why investors would be scared of a 13 week Power Down when they can just buy liquid Steem.

I think this post confused some people into thinking, or forgetting, that liquid Steem is always available for people who don't want their $$ locked.

$0.00

abitcoinskeptic (73) · 5 years ago

I notice STEEM POWER hovers around 60 to 70% of stotal Steem.
This means 30~40% is liquid. That is enough in my opinion and I am not aware of any shortage. Who knows if cha ging this ratio to be lower (more sp) is good?

More people are already powering down than powering up on a daily basis recently. I don't know if this is good or bad. Changing dyanics to encourage further power ups may also encourage further power downs.

SP is used for important things like sps voting rewards and witnesses, allowing exchanges to swoop in and 'experiment' for a 4 week delay instead of a 13 week delay may be a death blow because it will allow quick and potentially devestating attacks..

Changing the powerdown from 1/4 a year to 1/13 a year seems like too much risk for too little rewards.

Moving inflation from just holding sp over to the 3 days saving bank may be a safer option. Can profit from this withoutntoo much influemce and reduction in liquidity. option.

$0.00

thecryptodrive (70) · 5 years ago

Moving inflation to savings is certainly interesting but it would have to be to the Steem savings not SBD savings, as inflation on SBD would make the peg worse.

$0.00

abitcoinskeptic (73) · 5 years ago

I think tweaking the sbd bank to take steem as well would be a worthwhile option to explore. Call it Steem Power Lite if you will.

I don't think there is a particular rush to move powerdowns to 4 weeks. We have no data to support this will help SMTs because those are a long term investment even compared to 13 weeks. So holding it until a year or so later if the prices don't increase is another option.

I just have a feeling that lowering it to 4 weeks will turn Steem more into a speculative asset. There are hundreds of other cryptocurrencies doing this already.

$0.00

steem-ua (64) · 5 years ago

Hi @thecryptodrive!

Your post was upvoted by @steem-ua, new Steem dApp, using UserAuthority for algorithmic post curation!
Your UA account score is currently 8.400 which ranks you at #17 across all Steem accounts.
Your rank has not changed in the last three days.

In our last Algorithmic Curation Round, consisting of 75 contributions, your post is ranked at #3. Congratulations!

Evaluation of your UA score:

Your follower network is great!
The readers like your work!
Try to work on user engagement: the more people that interact with you via the comments, the higher your UA score!

Feel free to join our @steem-ua Discord server

$0.00

chesatochi (72) · 5 years ago

I believe is a good idea and I am going to vlog about it this morning.

Posted using Partiko Android

$0.00

trieuvinhkim (56) · 5 years ago

Supports your opinion

$0.00

birdinc (62) · 5 years ago

3 months, 4 weeks or instant. It doesn't matter and will not make a difference re: attracting new users / investment.

$0.00

brianoflondon (71) · 5 years ago

I'm relatively new here so forgive the naive tone of this question.

How many accounts and how must Steem have been saved from malicious actors by the lock down? Ballpark?

Nobody is there to save me if I post my bitcoin passphrase on line, why is a safety net needed here?

$0.00

themarkymark (78) · 5 years ago

I don't get why this is a proposal, you can add/remove votes on a proposal. Why not use something like Dpoll?

$0.00

thecryptodrive (70) · 5 years ago

Some stakeholders don't like using dpoll.

$0.00

ocdb (56) · 5 years ago

$0.00

Reveal Comment

themarkymark (78) · 5 years ago

I'm ok with as low as 4 weeks but not lower. There is certainly a lot of people who will not power up (or powers up less) due to the large risk of a 13-week power down. On the other hand, it will encourage more powering down and dumping. No one knows which will be more common.

With the changes to curation, we have already seen more powering up.

I'm not going to vote the silly proposal though.

$0.00

thecryptodrive (70) · 5 years ago

Yeah i think 4 weeks is a sweet spot that covers all bases. Sure go ahead and vote, doesn't seem you have yet. If witnesses decide they want to set dpoll as the standard for future voting then can use that in future, this is already done so no sense in duplicating on dpoll.

$0.00