lol right now there are only 2 market manipulators and I think you can guess who they are... This post is a great idea and I've been saying the same from the beginning. Locking people up for 104 weeks does a few things:
1- tricks some people
2- when people find out they are locked in they get mad or leave
3- locking people in is effectively trying to manipulate the market (in the end the market will decide)
4- why not let the FREE market determine the value of the platform, not tricks and larinomics
5- the argument smooth makes about voting with multiple accounts makes ZERO sense if the power down period is more than 24hrs... so 104hrs or 104days works. Also a rule could be put in place that does not allow a user to vote with new steempower for 24-48hrs (delaying the vote power like locking up staked coins for a #of confirmations)
6- I believe with almost 100% certainty the power down time will change but the large holders need to cash out more first. Then they will change the time limit stating is was "DEMANDED BY USERS" lolol of course this was all part of the plan but I'm one of the few people who see the big economic picture.
As I've said before, this platform is great, unfortunately the economics incentives "larinomics" are highly flawed.
Time will tell...
The initial voting period for a post can extend for up to two weeks (especially if someone has an incentive to deliberately extend it) and the second voting period runs for 30 more days. One of the most widely requested changes from authors is to extend voting even longer so they can continue to be paid for work which has long-term value. That sits in direct contradiction to making the vesting period shorter.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Well you've described at least one flaw in the platform that's new to me, but its not that which bothers me.
It's the Larinomics that bothers me
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Maybe if you described your objections without using some sort of self-invented pejorative label, you might be taken more seriously by impartial readers, which in this case happens to include myself. (I'd also have a better chance of understanding what the hell you are talking about.)
I have no preexisting agenda in favor of any Larimer or their views but the approach you are using tends to encourage me to dismiss your opinions as trolling and instead, at least on the margin, to support them, probably the opposite of what you intend.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
@smooth, this comment makes us wonder if you DO have a preexisting agenda in favor of Larimer. You get all defensive for Dan all the damn time. I don't think he was being pejorative. Just clever.
So what gives? Are you and @dan related? Or do you just believe really strongly in the cause? Or both?
If you're related, heck, I wish my big brother defended me like that. If you believe in the cause, wouldn't you agree a little more transparency could go a long way and that investors would feel a little more confident if they could see the numbers of those who invest and earn, where the money goes, how it's bettering the economy here, what some plans are for decentralization, what technical developments are underway, etc.
Wouldn't you also agree that a little more transparency might discourage certain whales from gaming the system, making it more fair for other well-meaning whales, and minnows alike?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit