Feedback Wanted: 4 Week Power Down


Feedback Wanted 4 Week PD.jpg

Hello Steemians, in today’s post we want to talk about the proposal for a 4 week power down and how we plan to approach this issue. We are very excited about the fact that such ideas are being proposed by the community and we think that use of the Steem.DAO to gauge support is an excellent use case for this innovative tool.

Community Support

There is now sufficient community support that we must seriously consider the change. We have begun internal discussions, and we will soon release additional communications intended to provide the community with more information about the nature of this change, the potential risks/rewards, and alternate implementations.

Primary Concerns

Our primary concerns with such changes is that they represent the will of the community without posing a risk to the chain. The Steem.DAO proposal does a great job of quantifying support amongst large stakeholders, but participation in the Steem.DAO is still quite low and users can’t downvote proposals, which limits our ability to extrapolate broad support from these results.

Get Out the Vote!

Ultimately, we will base our decisions on the information we have available to us, and if that is the Steem.DAO proposal, then that is what we will use. If you agree with the proposal, it still helps to head over to the Steem.DAO and give it a vote. The more users who do vote on it, the more it becomes clear that support is truly broad. If you do not agree with the proposal then please comment on this article and publish posts clearly stating and outlining your position.

Technical Difficulty

The technical difficulty of this change is quite low because the power down rate is set when the user begins powering down. Currently, when the user begins powering down, the amount they select is divided by 13, and then every week 1/13th of that amount is distributed to the user. To implement this change, all that would be needed is to change that number from 13 to 4. Therefore, this change could be implemented without significantly delaying the SMT hardfork.

Existing power downs would continue on their existing 13 week track, but all new power downs would be for 4 weeks. If you want your existing power down to complete in 4 weeks, it is as simple as cancelling the existing power down and starting a new one! In December of 2016 we reduced the power down time from 104 weeks to 13 weeks. We would follow that pattern and have a high degree of confidence in the simplicity of this change.

Inherent Risk

When it comes to hardfork suggestions, one of our primary concerns is whether the suggested change poses a risk to the security of the chain, or the users of it. We would quantify the risk of this change as “very low.” It is a simple change, that we have done before, and would have limited second order or “knock on” effects. It is, however, a change and any change can have unforeseen consequences.

Economic Risk

The largest potential risk factors are likely in the economic sphere. Will this encourage investment or discourage it? We are not able to assess whether the potential economic upside is worth the potential economic downside, combined with the risk of unforeseeable consequences.

Security Risk

An implicit feature of Steem Power is that it time locks funds. If your account were to be compromised, it takes a week for some of your Steem Power to even be available to the attacker and 13 weeks for them to access it all. By reducing the power down time, an attacker could have access to a larger portion of your funds after just 7 days.

For these reasons, it is imperative that you make your voice heard whether it’s by voting on the proposal, or encouraging others to vote on the proposal and/or post on Steem about their opinion. We’ll continue to release communications about this change so that you can make an informed decision.

Vote!

You can vote on proposals from the Steemit Wallet https://steemitwallet.com/proposals.

We want to give a special thanks to @thecryptodrive for proposing this change and using the Steem.DAO to quantify support.

The Steemit Team


Comments 433


@steemitblog Hey such a nice and informative post!!!! Love to go through such posts. Really interesting!!!!
Keep up the good work!!!!
Wish you luck =)
Keep going✌
Good luck for your future articles!!! Keep steeming and one last thing that I would really appreciate and feel good if you go through my content and give your review!!! Thanks 😊@steemitblog

Posted using Partiko Android

22.01.2020 16:08
0

I think we should implement it with a fee. If you want to take it out early you need to burn 1-2% or wait the 13 weeks. Any new feature should focus or add burning of steem as that is what will get the price up.

22.01.2020 16:12
0

Good idea. Agree.

22.01.2020 16:35
0

Thanks

22.01.2020 16:39
0

This negatively affects security because a hacker would gladly do this in order to have access to your steem.

22.01.2020 18:45
0

This is the best suggestion here !

22.01.2020 23:47
0

I like the idea (not mine read it somewhere) of instant power downs with the cost of a percentage of the power down value being burned.

I'm totally unsure about the risks for Steem though, but I would love to see this idea being discussed.

22.01.2020 16:13
0

I'm not a fan. As a witness I wouldn't vote against the SMT proposal because this is included, but I think it's bad for the network to change it. Part of what makes Steem a community is that people can't just up and leave. If you have steem powered up you're going to be a part of this place for 13 weeks. I think it's part of why steem has a culture of "we all go to the same moon," as opposed to "sorry suckers that token is going up slightly faster so I'm leaving." It happens anyway, but there's a bunch of people that'll post here up until the blockchain flatlines.

I do think it's a real concern to speculators that people can't get their money out quickly. That answer is simple. Buy Steem, nut don't power up. The question I see is does it hurt investment? My guess is that there's more problems seeing the utility of Steem and getting in and out is a tiny side show. So, rather than rush a "simple fix" that I believe will hurt the community let's move it until after the hardfork and make it a burn case.

In a different version of this, Steem still has a 13 week powerdown, but you can burn some of the steem you would otherwise get if you wanted it to happen faster. Adds a burn case for steem, doens't hurt the community, and is a step closer to investor/trader friendliness.

In the larger scope of things I don't think a minor tweak of this property will drastically change things for the better. What will change things for the better is adding apps, usecases, businesses, and communities of people that are able to use Steem to make money, make a point, grow an audience, play a game, or some way that this place adds more value to their life than having dollars in a bank account does.

22.01.2020 16:16
0

Burning wouldn't be required if there were actual use cases for Steem. The fact that we have to "burn" tokens is fucking absurd. Do you see ANY other LEGIT project doing that? No. It just makes Steem look like the amateur playground it is.

22.01.2020 16:30
0

Token burning has been used by too many crypto projects to even name. I can't believe, you're not aware of this, bernie/nextgencrypto. And why are you using such a lesser known identity for your posting of this?

22.01.2020 18:20
0

Because I was on that account doing some voting and didn't care enough to change accounts, not that it matters.

Any of the token burning you're referring to that has been successful was planned in advance and not used as a way to try to bandaid a broken system. I can't believe you're not aware of this.

22.01.2020 20:31
0

Just look at how Stellar did their burning...did nothing for their coin.

23.01.2020 11:10
0

To listen to the audio version of this article click on the play image.

Brought to you by @tts. If you find it useful please consider upvoting this reply.

22.01.2020 16:41
0

Thumbs up to Instant power down for a fee. This is crypto and let's not try and be communists. Give people the right to choose to exit. This is fundamental.

22.01.2020 16:58
0

It's not about communism. People can exit under the current system. The delays in place are a strong protection for active participants in the system. People who just want to speculate can hold their funds in an unpowered state, probably on an exchange, where their safety (or lack thereof) is determined by the exchange anyways. But active voters (powered up participants) are responsible for their own funds, and the powerdown delay has saved many people from losing all their funds.

22.01.2020 18:17
0

.

22.01.2020 19:07
0

Could you clarify exactly whose incompetence you're referring to here? Are you saying new users are incompetent for losing their funds? Or do you mean that devs are not competent enough to make this change, but are afraid it's technically difficult, so are hiding behind this as an excuse? Because if the latter, it should be pointed out that devs have already said this is an easy change to make, from a technical perspective.

22.01.2020 19:16
0

Safety is often used to sell something to the ignorant while keeping other agendas private.

25.01.2020 18:13
0

"Part of what makes Steem a community is that people can't just up and leave."

You've created a prison, not a community.

22.01.2020 18:16
0

"Came for the rewards, stayed for the,... wait.. no.. we're being held hostage."

23.01.2020 06:51
0

lol

24.01.2020 15:13
0

There you go!

27.01.2020 01:19
0

Exactly.

23.01.2020 11:52
0

Saying a 13 week power down is a "prison" is like calling a business contract a prison. People can't say they are being forced when they knew the terms to an agreement before hand and then agreed to participate.

You're on Steem, which means that you are a willing participant. No one is forcing you to be here, and no one is forcing you to write or curate on Steem. So, you have consented to the 13 week staking system because you decided you wanted to participate in the game mechanics of Steem.

26.01.2020 02:42
0

I agree with aggroed. But I am also a fan of a way to instantly power down + burn 5% as a fee to do so. Creates a sink, liquidity and is good for large investors who don’t want to be locked in a speculative asset with no way out for 13 weeks. I don’t like the idea of a 1 month power down as it does nothing for anyone. A month is still too long for a large investor to YOLO on(power up) and dosent satisfy a way to get out instantly.

22.01.2020 18:17
0

Instant powerdown or 4 weeks are only if opt in.

Like:

" You want a less secure account and 4 weeks Powerdown press here (owner key required)"

Same with Instant Powerdown with fee.

But i would say the fee goes to DAO. So if the price pump DAO gets more funds, or use it for account tokens for onboarding.

useless burns would change nothing.

22.01.2020 19:15
0

Nobody is going to lock up coins knowing they have to take a 5% cut to get out quicker than 13 weeks, that's a losing proposition with Steem.

And you're wrong, a 1 month power down does more than "nothing" for true investors. Maybe you need a little more time in crypto to understand things before speaking about them.

22.01.2020 20:33
0

How about an internal exchange SP to STEEM .... I believe this was mentioned before

22.01.2020 21:25
0

if someone compromises my account (somehow) the 5% burn for instant power down would be the last thing I want available

22.01.2020 22:01
0

for hackers 10% ok too :D

23.01.2020 12:40
0

And you're wrong, a 1 month power down does more than "nothing" for true investors

Can you elaborate?

27.01.2020 06:13
0

... burn 5% as a fee to do so ...

That's a really interesting idea, but in case your account got hacked, the attacker could get a bigger portion of your STEEM before you had the chance to change your keys.

Maybe 2 FA should be implemented in the long run.

Maybe there could be the option to determine save withdrawal addresses (white listed addresses)?

Also, wouldn't it be possible that every account holder had the option in his own account to either select a 4 or 13 week power down?

22.01.2020 22:22
0

Anything is possible however if you take a look at the original post here, you will see that the change to 4 weeks is only being considered for the upcoming hardfork because the code change is trivial and low risk:

To implement this change, all that would be needed is to change that number from 13 to 4. Therefore, this change could be implemented without significantly delaying the SMT hardfork ...

Of course it is possible to discuss any other sorts of changes such as configurable power down time, but not within the context of something that is feasible to deploy soon.

23.01.2020 05:53
0

you will see that the change to 4 weeks is only being considered for the upcoming hardfork because the code change is trivial and low risk

Yes, @steemitblog wrote it was easy to implement, but the reasoning for considering it is also that there was support for that idea within the community:

We are very excited about the fact that such ideas are being proposed by the community ...

What I meant with "interesting idea" is the suggestion of @theycallmedan to burn a certain percentage of the STEEM always if anybody wants to initiate such a faster power down. So if one could fulfill the necessary security requirements (or if some people - I am not one of them - by their own choice optionally could accept a somewhat higher risk in exchange for a faster power down) that could be an interesting instrument to reduce the inflation of STEEM.

Thinking the idea to burn STEEM (whenever possible) is interesting doesn't mean I was supportiing the proposal for a shorter power down period (currentIy am not).

23.01.2020 08:32
0

Sorry, in case it wasn't clear I was answering the question in your last paragraph:

wouldn't it be possible that every account holder had the option in his own account to either select a 4 or 13 week power down?

by pointing out that it is certainly possible, but not possible within the constraints set forth for the current hard fork. It would have to go into a future one, probably in six months to a year. For this one, the options under consideration are simply 4 weeks or 13 weeks.

Your other ideas (2FA, whitelists, etc.) are also very good ones which should be considered in the future.

23.01.2020 09:16
0

I like the idea of white addresses to which I can get (this solves all security problems) speculators move the price in markets around the world, so we need them like air !!! 100%

23.01.2020 13:07
0

I dont like the idea of a burn. I dont see any benefit for Steem to do that.

Burn means Steem is not a valuable resource, otherwise it would be a donation for instant powerdown to Steem DAO.

If you need to burn token the design of the token is bad.

23.01.2020 12:37
0

I dont like the idea of a burn. I dont see any benefit for Steem to do that.

One of the reasons for the high bitcoin price is its scarcity, whereas STEEM still has a rather high inflation. In my opinion burning some STEEM helps to curb the negative effect of inflation on the value of STEEM - at least for now.

23.01.2020 15:48
0

dont get me wrong but with onboarding and more usecases we get the same effect in a more sexy way.

Steem is not Bitcoin.

If we remove current SBD from rewarding and make a Version like DAI out of it, we have the same effect beacause Steem get lockt up and less ( not control able) inflation.

And nice site effects like a real scalable 1$ pegged Coin on Steem.

I think things should be build for longterm and not for shortterm.

23.01.2020 18:06
0

dont get me wrong but with onboarding and more usecases we get the same effect in a more sexy way.

No problem, that you have a different point of view than me. I know what you mean, STEEM is not mainly (only) a value storage but also a fast and flexible blockchain with many possible use cases. Sure, there is a difference between STEEM and bitcoin, but for now we have no 'mass adoption', yet, just a crypto currency which is losing more and more of its value (which not only hurts current stake holders but also makes it less attractive for potential new investors).

I wrote "for now" I like the idea of burning STEEM, because I think that at least at the moment inflation, the fact that Steemit, Inc. is selling lots of STEEM and other reasons are causing an already long-lasting price decline pressure.

23.01.2020 20:22
0

Also, wouldn't it be possible that every account holder had the option in his own account to either select a 4 or 13 week power down?

Absolutely. And keep in mind that 4 weeks and 13 weeks are random numbers. They have no meaning and the powerdown period in the future should be far more dynamic than that.

23.01.2020 09:11
0

ideally I would like the option to extend PD for certain long term savings accounts and have others in 4 weeks etc, but I don't see that being possible for this HF due to complexity, 4 week only is a simple number change.

24.01.2020 06:03
0

If the 5% fee were to be implemented, I am more inclined to support it, if it were opt-in based. And the opt-in effect should be delayed (2 weeks, 30 days?) in order to prevent someone who compromises an account to opt-in and automatically withdraw. As for the destination of the fee, I'd allow options, regarding the destination: @steem.dao, @null, maybe @steemalliance if they can take this kind of funding.

But on the long term, I prefer the solution @therealwolf proposes with differentiated interest benefits, based on the duration of committed power up. With the possibility to have different "deposits" with different interests, like at the bank. That doesn't exclude the possibility of implementing both.

Both they are not the kind of easy fixes Steemit expects, like changing "13" with "4". Both will require some work and some code auditing afterwards, especially since we are dealing with wallet code changes.

23.01.2020 09:58
0

Good idea!!! But the fee should better be 30% for the instant power down instead of 5%!

25.01.2020 13:19
0

That burn feature is a nice idea. It seems like its a flavor of the HEX token's "emergency unstake" feature, but yeah, would be good to see that option.

22.01.2020 18:27
0

"Part of what makes Steem a community is that people can't just up and leave". This is a good thing? So we will just keep other people's coins locked so they can't go? Why don't we increase it back to 104 weeks? Who cares about small users here on steemit when whales are the ones that are controlling everything.

Let the users decide if they want to stay or go. Create a better environment and they will definitely stay longer.

22.01.2020 19:05
0

Its a good thing when people have consented to it. Know anything about certificates of deposit? Locking your USD gets you more USD, because it is good for other people. In Steem you agree to lock up your STEEM for "powers" and it benefits others because you do it. This is a consensual relationship, you agreed to have your STEEM locked up, so don't go around calling it an attack on free will.

24.01.2020 17:31
0

Agreed on almost all points. Even if we did want to change, the change should be much more conservative. From 13 to 10 weeks, for example.

Make incremental changes, observe results, and make further changes if necessary.

22.01.2020 19:31
0

Ya, 4 is a big jump from 13.

25.01.2020 18:14
0

@aggroed if i want power but also be liquid i can lease Steem, where is the problem....

So i spend some Steem for a delagtion and big part can be liquid.

Easy wallet creation is a bigger problem. Because i dont care as a investor about power down, if i dont have a wallet right?

22.01.2020 19:32
0

The instant power down concept, regardless of the cost/burn destroys the security feature altogether. A hacker won't care about burning 5% or 20% or even 50%. Anyone who is hacked will lose all their funds instantly.

22.01.2020 20:03
0

You are spot on! At such as high rate, its ridiculous and a major tax on people.

26.01.2020 18:47
0

"It happens anyway, but there's a bunch of people that'll post here up until the blockchain flatlines."

I don't think either of those metrics is appreciably affected by a difference in powerdown time.

"My guess is that there's more problems seeing the utility of Steem and getting in and out is a tiny side show."

Again, the difference in powerdown time makes little difference. That there is a lockin at all probably is far more relevant.

A while back I made an error that enabled a hacker to swipe all my liquid. Had there been no lockin I certainly would have lost all my SP as well. This was revelatory to me, and has moderated my opinion, which was previously completely opposed to the lockin. I see it more as a security measure now LOL.

Beyond that, I reckon your judgment far superior to mine in this regard. I have far too often demonstrated my ignorance disagreeing with you =p

Thanks!

22.01.2020 21:46
0

All of this. The answer is to change nothing about how this works now, because it is a security mechanism.

23.01.2020 15:47
0

I agree with @aggroed. Also +5% burn for instant power down. But considering potential compromise from instant burn to powerdown as highlighted by @smooth, can we setup up a max cap for instant power down ? For instance maximum of 10%(TBD) of your SP can be instantly powered down with 5% burn with cool down time of 30 days for the next use thus if you want to use another instant powerdown you need to pass 30days from the last instant powerdown date.

Time to time people will need some urgency of liquid funds in their life regardless of how much they love about steem. Life is no guarantee. ;)

23.01.2020 00:01
0

I'm mildly in favor of the 4 weeks. I don't think it is that big a deal either way. But I do strongly disagree with this:

Part of what makes Steem a community is that people can't just up and leave

What makes a strong community is that people can leave but choose not to. They renew their ties every day when they decide to stay. A "community" where people can't leave is a cult or a prison.

23.01.2020 02:43
0

Amen to this:

A "community" where people can't leave is a cult or a prison.

24.01.2020 06:04
0

Fully agree with that. We are not in a bank system where we have to beg to have back our money... Why not put in place something similar to tezos where you need to wait 1 month before your delegation or power up here starts to produce interest. Like that people are free to have back all their money when they want it but they have also reason to avoid power down

24.01.2020 14:16
0

Dear @smooth I have been targeted by @buildawhale and he is downvoting my posts to nothing . I have posted here on steemit every day since I joined steemit in July 2016 and invested a lot of money in this and if this sort of thing is allowed to continue then steemit will never recover .
Here is what I wrote him to ask him to stop and then I will show you his response .

To @buildawhale

I do not post anything offensive and do not bother anyone .

Please leave me alone or I will power down and leave Steemit as so many others have done from these " down voting plagues."

As you well know, Steemit is declining in active accounts . As long as this type of down voting continues , Steemit has no chance of ever returning to its former glory .

It is beyond my understanding as to why you want to destroy Steemit .

Who in their right mind would ever put any money in Steemit when someone like you can come along and destroy their investment ?

I have invested money and time in this and the money was before people could down vote someone and not use some of their own voting power to do the down vote . Just look what has happened to the active accounts since the last hard-fork : I hate to say this , but If Steemit does not fix this soon , this site is doomed.

Remember the Golden Rule : " Do unto others as you would have them do unto you " . Would you really want someone with millions of Steem Power to down vote your posts to oblivion ? I think not .

And here was his response

26.01.2020 02:18
0

Yeah, that's problem.

You don't do anything. You are just a mini-Haejin.

26.01.2020 02:23
0

Just look what has happened to the active accounts since the last hard-fork

What happened after the last hardfork is that the long-running decline in active accounts slowed down a bit, but not dramatically. measures of acti

26.01.2020 08:14
0

@smooth thank you for your reply

27.01.2020 19:50
0

COMPLAINTS FILED AGAINST STEEMIT

Unfortunately because of a few scumbags like the following members, Steemit's days as a viable forum are quickly coming to an end, because it has essentially turned into nothing more than a cesspool of fraud and corruption, controlled by childish members, porn promoters, and other such low-life human beings.

@steemcleaners - 82.0

@themarkymark (AKA @buildawhale) - 77.6

@bullionstackers - 71.9

@buildawhale (AKA @themarkymark) - 74.9

@quarantine (AKA @the-reef / AKA @block-power) - 61.2

@bookguy - 61.0

@mack-bot - 58.8

@the-reef (AKA @block-power / AKA @quarantine) - 54.9

@block-power (AKA @the-reef / AKA @quarantine) - 25.0

@blockcreate - 25.0

@steemcleaner - 1.07

and others.

The Facts: If any of the above members do not like one of more of your posts, comments or replies for any reason, they will not only down-vote that post or comment, but will then go back and down-vote many, if not all of your previous posts and comments (plus any you post in the future), thus reducing your reputation rating to near nothing. A scumbag is a scumbag, but the real problem lies with the idiots who run and control Steemit. Only a bunch of total morons would ever set up a voting system as it now is designed. The main problem is that a higher reputation member can always down-vote a lower-reputation member, which will have a significant impact on the lower-reputation member's rating. The reverse however does not hold. A lower-reputation member can indeed down-vote a higher-reputation member, but unlike the reverse, the lower-reputation member's down-vote has no impact on the reputation of the high-reputation member. It's like it never happened.

In any event, whoever devised such a system, unfortunately has more than a few marbles missing. But quite frankly, who cares? I am now in the process of powering down my steem (10 weeks to go) so that I can exit this cesspool as so many thousands have done before me. So if the Steemit's management really wanted to create a cesspool of such scumbags, a real haven for porn lovers and other such low-lifes, congratulations! They accomplished that! Steemit will not survive much longer! Of that fact, I am quite certain!

To all the scumbags here on Steemit: Go ahead, and bring on the down-votes, and perhaps it may help you feel good for a while, but in the long run, it will not fill your otherwise pathetic empty lives.

To all other Steemit Members: I'm sure you have come to realize some of these things, as well as the fact that steem payouts are nowhere remotely close to what they are claimed to be. Only those at the very top of the pyramid get the bulk of the payouts, while the rest of us (the vast majority of us), get virtually nothing.

Please also note that you would be wise to withdraw all your steem from Steemit asap. Official complaints have been filed with the following Government Organizations seeking the shutdown of Steemit:

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
https://www.ftccomplaintassistant.gov/?utm_source=takeaction#crnt&panel1-1

The Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) https://www.ic3.gov/default.aspx

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/cyber

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
https://www.sec.gov/divisions/enforce/claims.htm

Meanwhile, the best thing you can do to help the Steemit platform, and give it a chance of survival, and if you have a higher-reputation, is to down-vote the above members so if not to get them off of Steemit, at least take away their abusive down-voting power.

03.02.2020 21:55
0

I’d vote for the burn over a change to the actual power down schedule. Good idea @aggroed

23.01.2020 03:12
0

But the thing is that people NEVER leave when the token is going up in value, at most they sell a small part of their stake.

People leave only when the price is going down, way down. And this bear market has proved that people still powerdown, it doesn't keep them in.

At the same time, we are not allowing investors to panic sell. I know it's counter intuitive but we want them to panic sell so that they get rid of most of their stake at the lowest price possible.

Removing the powerdown will allow us to take a big punch whenever price capitulation happens and then recover quickly.

However, with this powerdown in place, selling pressure remains throughout a bear market, and that's a big part of why Steem fell in ranking on coinmarketcap.

Let the weak hands leave quickly so that they get replaced by strong hands quickly.

What needs fixing is the price of steem more than anything else, so let's take this into consideration and make it an instant powerdown, or make it an option (in case someone still wants the security it provides).

23.01.2020 10:19
0

You're wrong here. People do dump during a bull market, smart whales do. Imagine who this benefits most. It helps whales dump on the market and get out as price rises. This is not good for the little people that don't realize that their STEEM's value is about to plummet over night as a massive sell wall gets created. Giving whales this power will result in the inevitable death of Steem and leave poor people poorer.

24.01.2020 17:27
0

Whales dump only part of their stake. If they dump everything, the coin will clearly stop going up in price.

24.01.2020 23:27
0

That is one of the things we need to be cautious of. How can we know that certain whales are not pushing this 4 week shift because they want to dump everything and leave everyone else will greatly devalued STEEM? We wouldn't know until it was too late. 13 weeks on the other hand slows a whale's ability to dump all of their coins.

26.01.2020 02:49
0

If they dump at this price then it's the best thing that could happen to steem. We are near all time lows.

28.01.2020 17:28
0

Sorry I didn't realize you had already touched on this. I think a 10% burn fee to power down faster would be a good idea if they decided to move forward with this.

23.01.2020 12:58
0

I agree... it also gives the larger share-holders the ability to negatively affect the value of Steem by powering down more rapidly.

23.01.2020 16:31
0

That is what I think too

26.01.2020 02:53
0

Respectfully, I find your arguments to keep long term SP contradictory for what you and Steem in general stand for. On one hand we want to give power back to people, on the other force them to lock up their funds. Doesn’t make sense. SP should be eliminated and Steem alone in the wallet can be used in a similar fashion as SP. Let the free market decide if people keep Steem here or take it to exchanges. Justifying 13 week SP with the purpose of keeping people and their funds here sounds authoritarian.

Sure people say if you want luxury of staying liquid you can do so, but that doesn’t make sense. Why would anybody be interested in buying and keeping liquid steem when inflation dilutes the value of steem and doesn’t let them participate in the economy in a meaningful way.

Perhaps its time to give the options for people to set the parameters as they like. If security is the concern, increase the lock up time for savings.

I don’t think Steem continuing to play a central bank kind of role is beneficial. Anything that lowers the power of witnesses and gives more power to users regarding funds would make steem more attractive as an investment. Until then we/steem will be stuck in this semi-centralized/semi-decentralized limbo.

23.01.2020 16:38
0

SP should be eliminated and Steem alone in the wallet can be used in a similar fashion as SP.

I've made this exact point repeatedly in various witness chats. It seems to me like a natural subject for the next fork post SMTs anyways. First to simplify things in the face of multiple new tokens that will otherwise be a mouthful for new users to wrap their heads around an already complicated platform. Second to judge whether or not inflation-derived rewards from stake-based voting should continue to exist on the main token once SMTs are here.

An ideal situation would look something like this: Steem Power and the STEEM savings account are both removed completely. You simply hold STEEM in your wallet. It can either be liquid (default) or locked for a specific time period. Carrying out actions that require the use of resource credits, or casting witness votes, will necessarily lock the required STEEM to be granted those resources, or the stake that you decide to support a witness with, for a given amount of time (to avoid abuse of resource credits by people who could otherwise swap STEEM from one account to another and take up the available bandwidth). Users can then also themselves lock their STEEM for any given amount of time specified by themselves as a means to add security.

This would simplify things by several orders of magnitude for any new user coming to Steem and wondering what they need to do in order to participate, and what is up with all these different names for basically the same token.. It would also allow for flexibility in terms of different users with a different wish for security versus liquidity being able to choose what they want without us needing to find a "middle ground" which in the end doesn't satisfy anyone.

Finally, we would not have this childish term "Steem Power", which may be cool for an SMT used in a gaming community, but isn't fit to describe the main resource powering an "enterprise-grade" blockchain.

Obviously, this requires a serious rework and a lot of discussions, which is why I believe it deserves its own fork rather than being lumped in with the long awaited SMT fork.

23.01.2020 20:43
0

I like your ideas. I hope you will be able convince other witnesses. After SMTs Steem as a currency will have to take a different role to power the larger economy which may require better liquidity and flexibility for participants. I think Steem wallet is one of the best features of Steem, and removing SP would unleash its true power.

24.01.2020 15:07
0

Strongly Agree. We feel that what is more important now is SMTs, launch them, and then promote them. SMTs are of great value. We visited a lot of community owners in China and they really wanted something like this. But at the same time, they need simpler settings and a better client experience.

24.01.2020 02:04
0

I agree with your last ideas. We have to come up with something that creates value more than the bank does. Day by day my steam account value is decreasing. If some step do not took than soon my account will come in pennies.

People who really care about posting they must get the worth instead getting pennies. People who's videos is watched they are getting pennies. It not like Youtube that as much you watch that much promotion is done of your videos.

We have to come up with innovation and good ideas that creates the value of steem.

Regarding power down, I think those who want money they anyways going to get in 13 weeks or 4 weeks, they will do it. People who want to remain invested and grow they will remain. But how long, they also worth their money which is invested or earned hard way.

Few days back I have posted blog about how to increase Why STEEM Value Decreasing! Ideas to increase Steem Value steem and I got only nine votes and not a penny I earned. This shows nobody cares about steem value. Everybody wants money and saving their precious upvote and comments.

If something is not done soon than according to calculation after 20 days Steem value will be $0.01 and after 91 days steem dollar value will be $0.01.

I can help, let discuss ways and ideas and contribute to beat facebook and youtube. I am not against them but I am with people. Instead Facebook and Youtube earns let we people earn.

There are many ways to increase steem value. We can introduce Dai crypto in steem. And many more. Let discuss in Why STEEM Value Decreasing! Ideas to increase Steem Value

24.01.2020 08:27
0

People should be able to leave and stay as they please. You shouldn't force someone to wait 13 week just to leave the platform or even for legit business to get their earnings faster. If steem here to stay , time will tell. if not, this might just hasten the destruction of steem. Steem needs more value to attract more people using it.

25.01.2020 23:54
0

Some crypto-investors could become active steemians instead of holders because they would be able to deinvest much faster.

22.01.2020 16:18
0

Yes but those would not be investors. Those would be speculators and frankly that sort of speculation would lead to abuse of the system because what would they do while powered up? They would upvote only posts that benefit themselves directly. In otherwords you would see a net increase in the amount of spammy, low quality posts.

22.01.2020 19:00
0

To listen to the audio version of this article click on the play image.

Brought to you by @tts. If you find it useful please consider upvoting this reply.

22.01.2020 16:21
0

tts, you may avoid down votes if you express your own view, rather then just repeat what the steemit team said.

25.01.2020 12:02
0

I am AGAINST this proposal!

It would make sense to improve the savings feature BEFORE decreasing the Power Down time.

22.01.2020 16:22
0

Care to share any of your ideas on what improving the savings feature would look like?

22.01.2020 16:37
0

It is a tough question to answer. I think the biggest difficulty with the current savings mechanism is it is such an "opt-in" feature that new people will not think to do it (or even experienced users who haven't yet lost funds via some form of phishing attack).

The nice thing about the powerup mechanism is that it acts as a natural incentive to take this step towards protection of their funds.

22.01.2020 18:23
0

I have been on steem for 2 years and I still don't know what the savings feature is supposed to do...

22.01.2020 23:11
0

If you have a large chunk of Steem that you wish to keep liquid for whatever reason, keeping it in savings offers the protection of a "mini power down". If your account is compromised, it would take the hacker a few days to get it out, giving you time to secure your account. That is the only practical use I see, but that's not to say I could be missing something..

23.01.2020 07:00
0

Exactly. And this could also be potentially improved to accept dynamic inputs. 3 days, 2 weeks, 1 month, etc. Imagine, you're going on a trip for 2 months, and want to make sure that your liquid Steem is safu. Lock it up for 2 months, get some bonus inflation on top of it and voila.

23.01.2020 09:28
0

good info..tks

23.01.2020 22:27
0

I read your comment where you described the idea of the bonus inflation. I think it's brilliant. I don't really see how a 4 week power down improves speculation value, because there is still a learning curve and extra things an investor will need to do to make efficient return on investment, and we cannot assume all investors are interested in Steem 101. If they are interested in hodling Steem and hodling only, powering up isn't even a necessity.

My biggest concerns are the security implications of a 4 week power down, and in all respects 13 to 4 is quite a massive jump. I understand in the crypto world people refer to this amount of time as "as life time," but what does quick pump and dump investments really offer for the intrinsic value of Steem?

My initial reaction was that this was a good idea, but after thinking about all the implications, and reading the comments, I just can't vote for the proposal.

Now bonus inflation for return, with conditional time allotted lock up.., (Kind of a similar idea as what HEX is doing right?) now that is something I think investors might be attracted to. Nice forward thinking @therealwolf, and thank you for your response here.

24.01.2020 00:30
0

never knew that..tks bro

23.01.2020 22:27
0

You're welcome bro.

24.01.2020 00:20
0

Couldn't you power up the savings bucket and just strip it of voting rights for witnesses and SPS? That way, if you want help govern the network, you need the 13 week vesting. If you want to jump in and vote folks with your short-term HODL, you can do so with a 3-day power down and at your own risk.

23.01.2020 01:03
0

This is one of the better ideas I've heard about this. It's likely having classes of citizenship based on your level of time exposure.

You want to be a full citizen. Stake the thing.
You want to be eligible for rewards, but not have to stake for 13 weeks, ok, but then you don't get to participate in governance.

23.01.2020 03:30
0

You want to be a full citizen. Stake the thing.
You want to be eligible for rewards, but not have to stake for 13 weeks, ok, but then you don't get to participate in governance.

Yes, but I'd do it a bit more granular. For example:

Action Minimum Staking Duration
Rewards Pool Voting 1 week
Proposal Voting 2 weeks
Blockchain Governance Voting 1 month

And here some examples of how the staking duration (power-down period) could affect rewards. (really rough numbers)

Rewards Staking Duration
2% p.a 1 week
4% p.a 1 month
8% p.a 3 months
14% p.a 6 months
20% p.a 1 year
23.01.2020 09:25
0

I would support this, not just throwing a 4 week powerdown through. I would encourage you to write more about this and try to gain support on it. I would certainly (for what it's worth) support, upvote, resteem etc.

25.01.2020 18:32
0

I like your ideas about dynamic staking @therealwolf and I would prefer being able to Power Up longer than 1 month.

25.01.2020 18:54
0

I have to echo this sentiment. Let those who want to try out the chain have their short staking and unstaking features.

Let those who wish to have influence on the chain power up and stick around longer.

23.01.2020 15:31
0

Perhaps another idea would be to adjust Steem Power potency all together to indicate your level of "loyalty" to the protocol.

For example:

5000 STEEM powered up (staked) with a 4 week power down = $0.03 100% upvote
2500 STEEM powered up (staked) with a 8 week power down = $0.03 100% upvote
500 STEEM powered up (staked) with a 40 week power down = $0.03 100% upvote

This could allow for much more equality in distribution of STEEM rewards via smaller holders simply being willing to lock in to the system for longer.

24.01.2020 18:53
0

I would like to be able to Transfer my Steem into Savings for as long as I want as opposed to just 3 days.

(to secure my holdings)

27.01.2020 16:58
0

I'm all for taking the power down to 7 days with the ability to get notified via e-mail if a power down is started for security. Having long power downs didn't protect the protect the price at all.

Posted using Partiko Android

22.01.2020 16:22
0

You can already get notified via email or whatever you choose when actions happen on the blockchain

But it won't be the blockchain sending the email obviously. It's possible for a notification service to be created for all to use, but again, it won't be built into the blockchain so you can not required the two be combined.

22.01.2020 16:36
0

NO REAL INVESTOR WANTS TO TIE UP THEIR INVESTMENT FOR WEEKS AT A TIME SO THEY CAN REWARD OTHERS.

22.01.2020 16:23
0

Fully agree!!!

22.01.2020 17:45
0

I respect your comment but,
Invest and don't power up. Like many investors out there. Like many other coins.

22.01.2020 18:31
0

Most other coins, and all of the successful ones, don't have 8% inflation that you have to fully absorb if you invest without powering up. Day trading is one thing but if you want to hold the coin long term without powering up you are paying a very high price to do so.

23.01.2020 06:03
0

Not to criticize but you don't seem to know what you're talking about.
Real investors gladly tie up their money for weeks or years at a time. To invest means to make a commitment. It's gamblers that are afraid to commit.

This is the difference between investing and speculating and gambling.

Gambling is putting your money on what you hope will be a winning position. You don't really buy anything when you gamble, so when you lose you don't continue onwards without putting in more money.

Speculating is buying and hoping the price will go up so you can sell at a profit. The difference between speculating and gambling is that it is game over for the gambler if they made the wrong pick, whereas with the speculator, they have something of value and the option to hold on until they are satisfied the price point meets their objectives.

Neither of these results in economic activity though and that is why they are not investing.

Investing is committing resources to something which has at it's heart an economic activity, i.e. an activity that produces some value. That actually necessitates commitment and commitment on the order of weeks is nothing. Most investments take years to pay off.

22.01.2020 18:58
0

Investors tie up money but it is always considered a negative/cost. When it is done, it is done only for good reasons, and the investors expect to be compensated with a higher return.

Stock markets offer liquidity on what may be a years-long investment, but you still have access to get your money out of you need to. There is no contradiction between liquidity and investment.

23.01.2020 02:16
0

@smooth Honestly that's the wrong view. Consider the following...

  1. Stocks, the way most people invest, i.e. on the market are also a speculative wager. Unless you happen to buy pre-ipo, you aren't investing unless your plan is to gather dividends. But if you're betting on selling after an increase in the base price of the stock, then that's just speculation.
  2. Almost all companies keep a smallish float on the market and then keep a substantial amount of treasury stock, i.e. stock that isn't for sale. This stock is held within the company. It might be pledged as collateral on a loan, but it isn't liquid.
  3. The vast majority of stocks are penny stocks and OTC stocks, as a result they tend to be highly illiquid. So to are most angel and venture offerings.
  4. In the case of venture and angel capital, there is almost always a vesting period, i.e. a period wherein you are not allowed to sell your stake. This period is often years. This exists so that you don't end up undercutting future fundraising efforts by the entity you have invested in thereby depriving them of needed capital.
  5. Cryptocurrencies almost without exception are not stocks. Stocks confer an ownership right and voting rights in the underlaying organization. They confer a set of well defined and understood rights called Investor Rights and those rights give you a say in the way the company is run. Cryptocurrencies are commodities in almost all cases.
  6. Commodities such as cryptocurrencies follow a different set of rules than stocks. The similarity of their public markets aside, commodities have a production schedule and the purpose of purchasing commodities on the open market is to provide liquidity for the producers to meet short and medium range expenses until they can deliver the contracted for goods.

Steem is unique in cryptocurrencies. Ownership of steem itself is exactly like any other commodity crypto. You buy it, you're supporting the witnesses that spend the time and effort to produce it. However steem as a commodity has no obvious use case at the moment. Transfers are free, so even transfer fees are not a use case as they are in the case of BTC, LTC, ETH and nearly all the others.

Yet steem does have one use case in that it can be converted to something which conveys the ability to have a say in the day to day running of the underlaying network. That "something" as you may have guessed is SP. There is a reason that the underlaying software calls "powering up", "vesting". Notice it's vesting and not investing. You are vesting, meaning to create an entitlement to a privilege or a right in this case that right is the right to direct where a proportion of the daily pool is going to go.

I shouldn't have to explain the difference here, but for those just stumbling in and wondering what the big deal is, allow me to explain...
SP and Steem are fundamentally different things. When you hold SP you get to direct the location of newly minted steem. In exchange for that privilege you are agreeing to remove a chunk of steem from the open market. Doing so increases the price of steem and gives those who must sell in order to pay bills, for instance the witnesses, a chance to receive a better price.

If you can just freely convert back from sp to steem, the net effect is that there is both a lot more steem on the market, thereby driving down the market price for everyone and you are also undermining the system because large chunks of steem being sold on the cheap can powered up by bad actors. Those bad actors can cause a ruckus, potentially scaring away people who really do want to invest and those bad actors are incentivized to do so because lower steem price means more cheap steem to power up and cause even more havoc. If it takes 90 days for everyone, bad actors included to cash out that at least limits the damage. They can't just power down and dump, they have to go slow and this fact, limits the incentive for damage and also the amount of cheap steem they can dump.

23.01.2020 04:02
0

I agree with most of what you wrote to a point (I don't agree with your assertion that people don't invest in stocks just because stocks trade in often-liquid markets).

However:

If you can just freely convert back from sp to steem, the net effect is that there is both a lot more steem on the market, thereby driving down the market price for everyone and you are also undermining the system because large chunks of steem being sold on the cheap can powered up by bad actors

IMO this is purely assertion without any real basis in fact.

Making it easier to get to liquidity means that more people will choose to convert to SP in the first place, and more people will be willing to hold rather than preemptively exit. This can easily more than offset the effect of it being easier to get out.

Generally, in all the examples you describe, such as pre-IPO venture capital, when there is more liquidity, the price goes UP, not down. Liquidity is generally considered to be a premium, not a cost.

23.01.2020 04:13
0

You're a dick, but I agree with you on this one.

22.01.2020 19:12
0

More usecases = good and Value Steem.

Powerdown period does not affect the price in a big scale.

And btw if they want power there can lease steem... i think everybody forget about this.,...

22.01.2020 19:23
0

SP is only required to gain VP and RC, which aren't .......

Am I right thinking that powering up is necessary to get the inflation on the steem you own?

23.01.2020 09:54
0

yes and no because if you vote you get a return in curration rewards too.

23.01.2020 09:55
0

STEEM POWER increases at an APR of approximately 2.19%, subject to blockchain variance. See FAQ for details.

Thats if you power up

23.01.2020 11:12
0

It's been repeatedly observed that investment does not require powering up. Your point is invalid.

SP is only required to gain VP and RC, which aren't necessary to capital gains or speculation in Steem.

22.01.2020 21:53
0

The idea of a trader or investor needing or wanting to power up is also baffling to me. What sort of speculation does anything beyond an instantaneous power down enable?

24.01.2020 06:40
0

I second you to the fullest

23.01.2020 00:41
0

I am inclined to be against this change. The original 2 year power-down was probably way too long, but 13 weeks is not so bad really and it encourages people to stay involved. We need lots of Steem powered up to get a better reward distribution. Reducing it will see a lot of people take the money and run. Speculation leads to volatility, but long-term thinking means you have to ride out the minor crises.

22.01.2020 16:24
0

In fact, more and longer locking increases volatility, it doesn't decrease it. Price discovery happens as a result of coins which are liquid and can trade. With fewer unlocked coins there is less liquidity in the market and more volatility.

I'm not saying that is good or bad, though, there are arguments for both.

22.01.2020 20:25
0

I'm against this. The thing I dislike about it most is that it enables more funds to be lost from a one week powerdown by a hacker. It would be one thing if this was just a theoretical concern, but we know this happens quite often due to the many phishing attacks combined with all the new, inexperienced users joining Steem for the first time.

I agree with aggroed as far as the investment issue goes: if someone just wants to speculate in the coin, they can just avoid powering up (and indeed many such investors probably just keep their Steem on an exchange anyways, so that they can sell it at a momen'ts notice).

I don't think the current powerdown time is a big commitment for someone who wants to actively participate in the voting system and the mechanism creates some "solidity" to voter identity (someone can't just move around some poweredup funds quickly and vote "anonymously").

If it was 13 weeks before any funds could be obtained, I would probably feel differently on this issue. But with access to 1/13 after one week, I think the current system is sufficient.

In summary, I don't see any likely value-add from this change, and I think Steem holders who get hacked will lose more money as a result of this change.

22.01.2020 16:42
0

Yeah, that's what I don't get. If you're going to speculate, and you don't want to keep funds on an exchange, it's perfectly natural to want to transfer the liquid funds to a wallet. But it's not very likely for them to power up. I don't think the power-down schedule crosses a speculator's mind in any way.

If there's any barrier to speculation, it's the lack of wallet addresses, not the power-down schedule. Adding these wallet-only accounts would probably be less trivial to shoehorn into the next hardfork, though.

22.01.2020 16:53
0

100% True!

22.01.2020 19:10
0

Adding these wallet-only accounts would probably be less trivial to shoehorn into the next hardfork, though

Yeah really the only reason the 4-week proposal was even seriously considered is for the upcoming fork it being a simple parameter change. That doesn't make a good idea necessarily, but it does make it feasible.

22.01.2020 20:18
0

There are other ways to earn on Steem than speculating, dlease.io for example. As someone who isn't any good at trading, makes more sense for me to power up and take advantage of this investment option at circa 14% pa returns (higher previously), as an investor doesn't make sense to power up more and lock up for long periods, especially if one can lose out on STEEM hitting an ATH again and you miss that because your funds are all locked up.

24.01.2020 06:08
0

Does the possibility 14% ROI directly rely on the fact that people who lease need to curate in order for them to ROI?
Or they need to do something else that relies on some kind of inflation mechanism?

Not that there's anything wrong with that, but if there was no inflation mechanism in play, there wouldn't be a possibility of 14%, right?

24.01.2020 08:24
0

i agree, think in a lot of people who will loses their account, i remember the legendary @surfermarly who was hacked, well this 13 weeks protect our investment fron a direct atack i am not agree with the changued from 13 to 4 weeks.

22.01.2020 18:08
0

After reading @blocktrades, I’ve changed my mind and see his point(s).

We are, here, presumably for the long run (it’s been over two years, for me).

Hoping our many investments in this platform, including our valuable time & money, continue to be rewarding.🙏🏼

22.01.2020 19:22
0

Stolen account recovery change to 4 weeks same as powering down time that could be a solution !?

23.01.2020 06:48
0

No, because this rule would change "how quickly" funds are lost. Currently, if a user doesn't notice his account has been hacked until the first powerdown hits (1 week), he loses 1/13 of this SP. Under this new rule, he would lose 1/4 in one week. Similary, in two weeks, he would lose 1/2 of his SP under the new rule, versus 2/13ths under the current rule.

23.01.2020 16:09
0

I got your point but for somehow we could improve the rule a bit to protect the sp on each week of powering down such as moving straight to the saving box or freeze it for 2-3 weeks or we could get a notification from phone/mail when some1 starts powering down and also moving it out of the saving box. There are many better ways than mine to get this done with the 4 weeks power down. The thing that if you still want to go against it, you never want to think about any new rules to help it out.

23.01.2020 16:31
0

No, I do think about such new rules, and if we come up with a set of rules that solves this problem, I'd be fine with a change to the powerdown time.

But this post by the Steemit devs isn't proposing to make a bunch of such changes, it's proposing that we make one isolated change and it's asking for our feedback on that single change. I'm expressing my opposition to this single change without adequate other changes to compensate for its affect on funds security.

Designing a set of rules changes that fixes the potential security problem and implement that set would take longer than what is being proposed for the hardfork. But I think this post is a fine place to discuss such ideas, and I don't intend my comments to in any way stifle such a discussion.

23.01.2020 16:52
0

I got ya ! I just missed the purpose of this post !

24.01.2020 05:42
0

You completely ignore market dynamics.

Not allowing investors to panic sell at the bottom is the single worst thing for the price of steem. It's the reason we perform worse than other coins in bear markets (Yes, a bigger reason than inflation).

I have repeated this argument way too many times without it being read to be bothered to explain it again.

23.01.2020 10:29
0

I don't completely ignore market dynamics nor do I need to read your post to understand your idea.

Seriously, it's kind of silly to think that such ideas haven't been thought about by many people who have been in this coin for many years and hold large stakes in it. But it should also be pointed out that such ideas are just opinions about human behavior and don't form any kind of really solid science.

23.01.2020 16:14
0

So if everyone knows how on earth are we not acting on it?

Yes, it’s not science but no argument in the powerdown discussion is scientific. It’s all based on predictions, investor behavior, security concerns of people.

As you are one of the biggest stakeholders on the platform, I hope you will come to the conclusion that the priority is the price of steem, and that it can be helped a lot by allowing instant powerdowns.

Judging from the rest of your SPS votes we agree on pretty much everything else.

24.01.2020 08:38
0

The thing I dislike about it most is that it enables more funds to be lost from a one week powerdown by a hacker.

How about 130 weeks instead of 13? 1300?

  1. There are hundreds of tokens with no staking.
  2. Make a alt account you dont use, put all your funds in it and delegate to your main account.

This is a major non-concern that relies on making the case that people are dumb and cant manage their funds so their Steem must be locked for longer.

I agree with aggroed as far as the investment issue goes: if someone just wants to speculate in the coin, they can just avoid powering up.

Thats painfully stupid and shortsighted. You want your community to participate more in trading. Those that believe most in STEEM are the ones that will create upward pressure on the price since they are more likely to buy in. Having only speculators, which we do now, that only simply follow BTC price movement is what is screwing us.

In summary, I don't see any likely value-add from this change, and I think Steem holders who get hacked will lose more money as a result of this change.

Fear-mongering over a very unlikely occurrence makes for a very poor argument.

23.01.2020 15:29
0

Ok, you make several arguments, so let's start at the beginning (hopefully I address most of them):

"make an alt account you don't use,...This is a major non-concern that relies on making case that people are dumb ..."
No, I'm making the case that most people won't do this, either from inexperience, laziness, or the mistaken belief that it seems you share that this form of hacking doesn't happen often in Steem. I think it's easy to make this case from observed data alone.

As support for the above argument, you also point out "There are hundreds of tokens with no staking". This is quite true, but most often these coins don't share an important characteristic of Steem: in Steem, users often use their keys in many web-based dapps. This is because Steem is truly more of a utility/dapp token than most coins, which are generally more for financial transfers. This is really a cool feature of Steem, but it also means Steem users are more exposed to phishing attacks than many other coins.

Having only speculators, which we do now, that only simply follow BTC price movement is what is screwing us.
I'm not arguing for having more speculators, I'm only arguing that it is feasible to speculate on Steem without powering up SP (and hence keeping liquidity of purchased Steem). Now while it doesn't sound like you want speculators, some do, and complained on this point, so I was addressing how speculation was still possible.

Fear-mongering over a very unlikely occurrence makes for a very poor argument.
In this case, I think you're making a poor argument by labeling this "fear-mongering" as some kind of perjorative. This is a real thing, that happens quite often in Steem. Maybe I see it more because people complain to us when their funds are stolen. But it's not that hard to find many people who have posted about losing funds from their accounts due to these phishing attacks.

23.01.2020 16:27
0

either from inexperience, laziness, or the mistaken belief that it seems you share that this form of hacking doesn't happen often in Steem.

So what youre basically doing is saying people are irresponsible with their funds thus need to be babied.
Thats a poor argument. Hacking and phishing i wouldnt put into the same category. Pure hacking coming from the failures in the STEEM code i find very unlikely and a risk that we should have accounted for when investing while phishing is again a product of people not being responsible with their funds.

Stopping change because a small minority of irresponsible individuals cant/wont take care of their funds properly is wrong on so many levels.

in Steem, users often use their keys in many web-based dapps.

Thats not really true. Keychain, SteemConnect.
If they do, thats another argument from the position of:
"Well, people are irresponsible and they dont know what theyre doing."

Lets educate them. Its very simple...

Dont give strange people you dont know your keys.

Then theres millions using exchanges where you basically give your funds away to a third party.

I'm only arguing that it is feasible to speculate on Steem without powering up SP (and hence keeping liquidity of purchased Steem). Now while it doesn't sound like you want speculators, some do

Hmm. Not powering up is extremely costly in lost ROI and inflation (2% yearly + 15% average from curation + 8%inflation) which is why, i assume, we lost many of our speculators. Shorter powerdown times would remedy that since STEEM mobility would be much greater

Im not saying speculators are bad, im saying that "our" speculators are bad since everyone that really believes in Steem is most likely powered up and not participating in trading to high degree.
I think thats safe to assume.
Reducing powerdown times would potentially increase the likelihood of (lets call them) hardcore hodlers to partake in the marketplace which would in turn increase liquidity, "health" of the token market and would create upward pressure on the price since those that believe in Steem are more likely to buy back in.

I think you're making a poor argument by labeling this "fear-mongering" as some kind of perjorative.

But it is fear-mongering.
Its basically the definition of it. Heres a quote from wikipedia.
"Fearmongering or scaremongering is the spreading of frightening and exaggerated rumors of an impending danger or the habit or tactic of purposely and needlessly arousing public fear about an issue."

The phishing that happens is a product of personal irresponsibility just like holding your funds in exchanges is. People still do it.
The point is not basing decisions on people being irresponsible.
Lets teach them otherwise.

On a side note... Just as a funny observation.... Crypto folks are the last people i ever thought would be so concerned with losing money.
-96% since ATH... lol

23.01.2020 17:01
0

I don't have a lot of time to debate semantics, so let's make it clear on one issue and stop discussing it: based on your quoted definieion, it seems you think I'm exaggerating the losses people have suffered as a method of fearmongering, and I think you are just wrong about the amount of losses that have occurred.

You also keep going back to personal responsibility and blaming all the losses on the people involved. You also appear to think that their is some easy way to "educate" them and avoid these losses.

Education attempts of this sort are made all the time, and time has shown us that these attempts are simply not sufficient. Actual changes have to be made at the process level to avoid these kinds of losses, in my opinion. We live in a world of very fallible people and any financial system that will scale to the masses has to recognize this and be designed to handle it. Note that I'm not saying lockup is the only method of achieving this, but it does serve an important role under the current steem rules, and I think adequate changes need to be made to those rules before dropping that protection.

23.01.2020 18:39
0

Also, while I know you meant it as a joke, it's not really fair to assume that most crypto people bought right at the ATH in Steem, or that crypto people mostly lose money investing in crypto. In my experience, I know a lot of people who made a lot of money investing in crypto (including quite a few who later lost it due to various flaws in the associated crypto rule sets).

Personally, it's hard to assess exactly how much my company has made in crypto strictly from crypto investing without a full analysis that I haven't done recently, because we make money from many different sources (contract work paid in crypto, exchange profits, and other services), but I'm more than comfortable stating that we have made at least 100x returns overall from crypto investments over 5 years.

23.01.2020 18:52
0

If we don't have phishing attempts right now, its because of the 13 week powerdown.
Spill a little blood in the water, and the sharks will arrive.

24.01.2020 13:00
0

A high quality product always is designed to be as idiot-proof as possible. So, you want Steem to be a high quality product, or a piece of shit? We should protect users from harm they don't even know can happen to them.

24.01.2020 17:40
0

I'm with @blocktrades on this one, 13 weeks is just right <3 if you don't like it ... don't power up :D really easy ;)

23.01.2020 21:11
0

the shorter time then better imho

22.01.2020 16:44
0

Good

22.01.2020 16:54
0

I am against this idea as well. The 13 week period did not prevent Steem reaching 6$+ price during the last boom. Locking up your steem is the price you pay for being able to have a strong vote in the forum.

If you want to trade and speculate in Steem then just don't power up, it's that simple. No trader is required to power up their steem.

I agree with @aggroed and @blocktrades comments as well.

I'd also be in favor of burning some steem to power down faster.

Full disclosure: I believe this change would hurt my bank. It would decrease the demand for my loans, and inhibit the usefulness of taking accounts as collateral. (I'd have to employ more strict terms which would make my loans less attractive.)

I would be willing to take a hit on my bank to improve the Steem ecosystem but I don't believe this change would be an improvement.

22.01.2020 16:59
0

The $6+ price point was a fluke, a new exchange listed Steem/SBD and non-steemians bought SBD without knowing it was a peg and when the peg went higher than $1 Steem followed. We also had like 10x less SBD printed at the time, a condition that likely will never happen again. I highly doubt many people responsible for the pump even knew about the powerdown lock.

While we may see $6+ steem again, the previous was a perfect storm of luck and ignorance.

22.01.2020 19:06
0

Overall accurate

22.01.2020 20:11
0

22.01.2020 20:37
0

22.01.2020 21:37
0

I agree with @neoxian why? Investors with big money wouldn't come in to power up anyways. Lol, unless they wanted to come in and power up and get rewards and then powerdown and repeat. Doesn't make sense at all to me... I think locking up for the 13 weeks encourages people to come in and build a community, isn't that what were doing? Or are we trying to make and encourage Dlive type people? My two pennies

23.01.2020 15:35
0

I pretty much agree with @neoxian @agrgroed and @blocktrades among the many comments I've seen under this discussion. Athough there are some valid and argueable arguments, The negative ones surpass the positive ones. There are many ways to exploit the system and you're giving users one more. And you must know how merciless are people around when they see an exploit. I can give you one, coincidencially using the bank. Let's say I buy 100000 steem, I power up so I can have voting power, I could use the bank for a full loan at the 6th or 7th day after powering up, taking a little hit in exchange for all that steem while still having 3 full weeks of voting power. I don't know Rick!

23.01.2020 15:39
0

Thank you for stepping forward with full disclosure, because this is exactly the point.

One of the things that makes STEEM unique for 'building' is that same thing that allows you to take a steem account as collateral against a loan to a real person! So many are in a rush to be like every other crypto, but every other crypto doesn't have what STEEM has, and we would lose what we do have with willy-nilly changes.

23.01.2020 16:08
0

I agree with @neoxian. IMHO, what he is saying makes absoulute sense to me.

💖💖💖🙏💖💖💖

23.01.2020 16:10
0

I am in-favor of this change. I understand the risk of losing more funds, but also think 7 days is enough time for taking preventative action(s) in most cases.

Changing power down to 4 weeks should increase liquidity and buy/sell actions in the markets, so that might improve price performance.

I think we should not lock people up for 13 weeks because they chose to powered up their STEEM. If they wanna leave they should, if they wanna come back, they are welcome.

22.01.2020 17:02
0

It's true when you don't reward people from a reward pool.

22.01.2020 18:33
0

How does it changes when we do? Interested in learning what I am missing here.

22.01.2020 18:38
0

e.g.
Power up 10,000,000 STEEM, upvote your posts, power down

The simplest way to milk without contributing to the STEEM price.

22.01.2020 18:52
0

Do not we all have free downvotes to show disagreements? We powering up and vote, and they powering up and vote. whats they difference? Powering up also serve as the purpose of securing the chain. How the 13 weeks power down is preventing "milking"?

I think one can power down as much as the VP/RC allows at that time. So, you just can't power down after using all your VP. Correct me if I am wrong.

22.01.2020 18:58
0

That's incorrect. You can use up all your VP/RC and it won't affect your powerdown time. You may be thinking of delegations: delegated steem can't be powered down.

22.01.2020 19:31
0

Yeah. Seems like I did confuse it with delegation. I think we can't use the SP that is being powering down that week. If that is correct then powering up to vote, then power down, doesn't affect much, does it?

22.01.2020 19:39
0

We may see a faster turnover respawn rate for abusers, but elimination is not possible given the current tools available anyhow.

23.01.2020 15:40
0

Probably should focus some attention to tools too. 😂

23.01.2020 16:16
0

What? You don't like whack-a-mole?

23.01.2020 16:17
0

I am supporting the proposal and think 4 weeks is still a long time and a good compromise. Powering up is still a commitment and a little less frightening if its 4 weeks instead of 13.

22.01.2020 17:08
0

Here's my take on this. It may not be in the best interest of this chain to accelerate power downs. My belief is you've already erroneously focused on development and not branding and bringing in new money.

So now you'd just risk faster power downs and probably a market crash as you've fundamentality ignored ideas like my refer-a-friend marketing strategy on the sps.

The chain has already built probably literally thousands of applications not one has created growth and value significant enough to stop the chain's value decline not just in price but in use as well.

So doing this on top of that i don't think is going to be helpful at all. These people are going to jump ship and jump out faster than improvements can be made. So thats my opinion either you gotta decide whats going to bring you value or you gotta attempt to keep your remaining base. However this idea may send them out of the door faster than you'd like

22.01.2020 17:11
0

Agreed.

22.01.2020 17:37
0

These people are going to jump ship and jump out faster than improvements can be made.

Yeah!!!! We must keep them here!!! I propose we return to 2 years powerdown.
Once you check in you aint ever leaving!

23.01.2020 15:42
0

It's like Hotel California!

23.01.2020 16:17
0

Well hey you got a better idea. The price not exactly booming here. So faster power downs what are the chances people will be wanting that feature to sell steem and not buy steem? It's probably more likely they want that feature to sell steem right? lol

23.01.2020 23:50
0

Yep

30.01.2020 03:02
0

This is such a great idea! It will increase liquidity on exchanges and the price volatility will increase as well (probably by a lot). To the upside and to the downside! This is great for specualtors like myself who are only looking for the next best price to dump their coins for a profit............IRONY OFF..............

It is as Aggroed already said: a big reason why we are a strong community is because of the fact that you cannot just pack and leave within a month...

Don't be stupid please, this idea is ridiculous. It will not promote growth, it will only PROVOKE speculation. Investors would feel safer but the cost for this is too damn high.

People who do not believe that STEEM has a bright future, should not invest in it in the first place... those people should stay away... don't invite them to the party... or they are going to trash your home (and jobs by the way)

The risk of this going bad is way higher than you are anticipating.

WHAT THE FUCK? Seriously, I hate this idea very very much.

STEEM is not some fucking pump and dump coin. Everyone and their grandmother will buy at 20 cents sell at 40 cents, buy at 20 cents sell at 40 cents.

We will never go anywhere because as soon as the price picks up upside momentum after a week everyone and their grandmother will temporarily dump 1/4 of their coins for a profit.

SERIOUSLY, WHAT THE FUCK???

22.01.2020 17:14
0

While you are here only for the cause and not profits?

Everyone wants profits. Do you really expect the price to climb up to 1 $ or 3$ or 10$ without any trades in between? For every dumper there is always a buyer. Eventually the coins will end up in "safe hands"

22.01.2020 18:06
0

If this were the case Steem would be a top 10 coin instead of struggling to be top 100. The top 10 have high liquidity and people speculating a ton. That creates a healthy market, not the other way around.

22.01.2020 18:43
0

Where is this strong community you speak of?

23.01.2020 08:57
0

I think it’s an bad idea to implement this change without any charge the only free method is to power down with 13 week otherwise there should be charge for powering down that should be decided.
Like I am also big fan of instant power down with 5% charge like @theycallmedan always says
If that pattern is followed than for 4 week there should be 1-1.5% charge of total amount should be implemented.

22.01.2020 17:17
0

I'm against this proposal and haven't supported it.

The main reason is I think is it encourages a longer term mind set around powering up and actually using Steem Power.

People can still get their SP out and 13 weeks is not that long a time!

And they can still choose not to power up if they want to speculate in the shorter term of course!

Is this our Brexit issue?

Posted using Partiko Android

22.01.2020 17:27
0

I'm against this for the simple fact that I don't think it will encourage any more investment than we have currently. I would much rather keep the 13 week power down and have a "fee to powerdown faster" option, very similar to what @theycallmedan has proposed. I think that is more beneficial to the ecosystem as a whole.

22.01.2020 17:36
0

But for a hacker it doesnt matter there is a fee. If someone use the active key on the wrong place, there get fucked.

Opt in with owner key or a New "Instant power down key" ( that needs the owner key to be created) would be good and maybe some whitelist for tranfer.

22.01.2020 19:19
0

Based on what I've seen so far, the opinions around this topic are pretty diverse and dare I say: conflicting.

I understand the reason for a shorter power-down period, but I also see the value in having a longer period. And I don't think it's a good time right now, to push changes, which too many people have problems with, including big stakeholders.

Now, personally, I'd rather have a system which rewards people for staking Steem longer dynamically, instead of forcing everyone to be okay with 13 weeks. For example: Alice might rather want to have a power-down of 4 weeks, while Bob would like to stake it for 6 months and Peter only wants 1 week. Alice would earn less inflation than Bob, because she could be out way faster. On top of that, Peter could only participate in the rewards-pool voting, but not in voting for witnesses/proposals, as this requires a minimum of 4 weeks staking.

Projects that are incentivised a longer staking period, include Crypto.com and Binance.

image.png

https://crypto.com/en/earn.html

Besides this, I would also like to see the savings feature be improved. There is absolutely no reason, why we're forced to lock it up for 3 days. This could be dynamic and even reward people with inflation.


With this said I haven't come to a conclusion yet! My instinct goes against any quick changes, but I'll keep monitoring this thread, to get a better insight on what my fellow stakeholders think.

I want to see a unified group of stakeholders on Steem. This doesn't mean that everyone has to be happy, but the majority. And at this time, the last thing we need is even more alienation.

22.01.2020 17:55
0

opt in and dynamic is good!

22.01.2020 19:20
0

I love this idea of dynamic staking.

23.01.2020 00:34
0

Part of the new STEEM that gets minted every 3 seconds gets allocated to SP holders as kinda-sorta "interest", yes?

Perhaps some of the incentives you're talking about could be an effective higher "interest rate" for continuing w/ a 13 week power down. I forget what the actual percentage that's allocated to SP holders is (15% ?), and I forget the current token generation rate / inflation rate -- so I'll pull some numbers out of my ass, but perhaps there could be some kind of curve applied such as:

  • Assume the CURRENT scenario (13 week power-down) realizes that SP holders currently get ~7% "interest" on their SP;
  • Perhaps a dynamic system could be put in place where:
    • If you opt to drop down to a 4 week power-down (or potentially whatever duration you choose), you sacrifice a portion of that "interest" that you would have otherwise earned, in proportion to the duration of the powerdown. 0-week power down? 0/13ths (0%) of the "interest" you would receive. 4-week power down? 4/13ths (~31%) of the interest you would receive. Perhaps this is a feature that would have to be set at the outset of account creation, or could be changed for a fee?; and
    • Those that opt to stay at a 13 week power-down would receive a little "bonus" that was sacrificed by others, increasing the "effective interest rate" their investment would realize -- incentivizing full-commitment power-ups.

At the end of the day, I feel that simply dropping the power-down to 4 weeks is short sighted, and doesn't really encourage people to power-up -- only removes what they perceive to be a risk (because they don't understand or are uninterested in understanding that powering up enables them to earn curation rewards and ideally increase their investment).

23.01.2020 01:48
0

Perhaps some of the incentives you're talking about could be an effective higher "interest rate" for continuing w/ a 13 week power down.

Yes, that's one way of incentivizing people to stake Steem.

At the end of the day, I feel that simply dropping the power-down to 4 weeks is short-sighted,

That's also one thing I'm worried about. Making quick & easy changes, is too often a fast track into tech-debt, resulting in even more problems over the long-term.


Regarding your calculation:

I'm not sure whether a linear or slightly exponential curve would be better, but the general idea is to cater to different kinds of users. Not everyone wants and should be bound to 13 weeks. by the way, 13 weeks is a random number chosen by the dev team AFAIK. Could have been 12 weeks, 14 weeks, or 10 weeks.

But it's also important to note that reducing the power-down period has also consequences towards the safety & governance of Steem. The risk is far lower for someone to accumulate enough stake to vote in malicious witnesses with a shorter power-down, than with a higher one. Meaning: the duration must have an effect on the potential actions a user can take on the blockchain. Which should hammer in the point that this isn't a quick & easy change.

23.01.2020 09:07
0

The risk is far lower for someone to accumulate enough stake to vote in malicious witnesses with a shorter power-down, than with a higher one.

I think you got it flipped here, yeah? The risk for malicious actions would be higher if a bad-actor could just cut and run quickly, yeah?

Either way, I'm pretty sure I understand your point. I've thought for a while now that "staking thresholds" are an interesting way to enable/disable functionality in apps (such as having a "commercial level" account requires an X-SP delegation to the project, or a standard "end user" level account is available to anyone).

Trying to develop some kind of offset where investors (speculators) can do their thing without negatively affecting the rest of the ecosystem is an interesting idea. Tying "power-down" commitments to the level of interactivity one can have on the chain is a cool idea., since that type of user (call them "speculators") probably isn't interested in witness voting (or any kind of real contribution anyway) I'm guessing. But, limiting these kind of things effectively remove any real motivation to stake steem, wouldn't it?

With that in mind -- if they're not interested in participating, is it worth going out of the way to implement solutions to give them what they want (and what they want sounds like "all the perks with less risk")? My thinking is no, and we would be better served by encouraging people to develop applications / use cases that give compelling reasons for small business to buy modest amounts of stake and vest.


All said -- I'm not a "start up" kinda person. I'm having a hard time imagining a scenario in a more traditional "investor package" that would be a safer bet than still owning your investment (rather than just sending cash to a project), and being able to be in control of getting it back. Steem price dropping over 13 weeks is a real thing -- but that's "risk" side of the transaction that balances out with the "reward" potentially.


Anyhow... this is a long enough response that essentially just agrees and rambles. Thanks for the reply. I'm gonna finish my morning coffee then head to work.

Cheers.

23.01.2020 15:23
0

I think you got it flipped here, yeah? The risk for malicious actions would be higher if a bad-actor could just cut and run quickly, yeah?

The risk is lower for a bad actor, when the powerdown period is lower, rather than higher, because he can get out faster. Unless he is able to somehow manipulate the powerdown period.


The most important point in giving different boundaries to functionality based on power-down, is to protect the governance of Steem. (For example: if exchanges can vote for witnesses, then we've got a problem)

Boundaries/Features can, of course, also be used to gamify Steem, but I'd say the priority is far lower right now.

24.01.2020 10:30
0

Ah gotcha. I misunderstood what you had said previously. I thought you were talking about the risk to the steem-ecosystem being low, if bad actors are able to bounce around quickly via short powerdown. But if I understand correctly, you were speaking to the risk for said bad actors being lower, if power-down duration is decreased -- this makes sense.

Thanks for the follow up.

24.01.2020 15:56
0

This could also work!

23.01.2020 11:53
0

This is a smart proposal. I vote for changing nothing, but a well thought out implementation ON POWER UP would be acceptable to me. Jamming some easy code into next HF is absolutely unacceptable.

23.01.2020 15:52
0

This is an "advanced" investment concept, similar to bonds etc. People who believe in the project and are part of the community will be rewarded better for it. I'm for this.

25.01.2020 18:22
0

Talking current account (short term), or long term investing, those relying on Steem as a income to live off of for rent etc., short term is their answer (stay away from powering up).

Long term investing normally runs 3 to 5 years yielding possible better rewards, all depends on situation of individual in community. Entering long term it is normally agreed at the outset how long a period you lock yourself into.

28.01.2020 12:01
0

Makes good sense locking in long term staking, offering higher rewards, when staking say 50k for xyz period should stabilize movement. If early draw-down is requested prior to duration terminating, charge higher percentage excess fees to move within a shorter period of time.

No one is obligated to power up, it is something new arrivals need to read up on, realize they are controlling their own earnings.

My feeling is not to alter systems before a HF, possibly look into comments and ideas now coming in from many members.

28.01.2020 11:54
0

Not a big fan of this anf do not think it will make much difference in mich at all. At least with the burn option, some steem would be burnt snd there'd be some cost and benefit to the community.

I also think there are other things to focus on.

22.01.2020 18:11
0

It would make a difference. It would add to trading liquidity, it would be more enticing for investors to come in. I mean there are big ex investors here that openly said they ould consider returning with shorter powerdown times. So its in fact a change for the positive for them at least.
Then you add more liquidity that can be used more in Dapps.

Just look at the dapp ratings and how they measure activity. Steem makes you choose. Theres a million things that has been talked about.
The loss that incurs if you dont power up. Its just better for speculators to move on to another token.

The community that believes in steem that is powered up would participate more in trading which would add to volume... Those that believe in steem are more likely to buy back in which would add towards upward pressure instead of what we have now. Trading bots that follow Bitcoin.

Theres so much positive you could potentially see if powerdowns are shorter. .

23.01.2020 15:48
0

Thanks

Did you see my most recent post? Not fleshed out but might be interesting.

23.01.2020 16:03
0

!ENGAGE 30

23.01.2020 16:09
0

I'm for this change. Looking through the comments a lot of people are just scared of being dumped on. For the security concern, one month is long enough and the security of your funds is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY. I don't want a nanny system "protecting" my money when it's obviously more a mechanism to control volatility and "lock you in". I think that some lock up time is warranted since powering up gives you additional perks, but 3 months is way too long in my opinion.

As some have stated, the way to get investors and keep them is to create value, period. I think the current powerdown schedule would be more of a deterrent than a boon for investors.

22.01.2020 18:16
0

I believe this would be a very bad change for Steem. We might soon be entering a bull market, but if we have a reduced powerdown rate we are likely to see much more dumping than powering up, which could result in depressing the price.

Plus it was pointed out that it further reduces the security of wallets. I see very little to no benefit to the system or the community from this change.

22.01.2020 18:18
0

Just like most people here in the comments, I am not a fan of this change. Let´s keep it at 13 weeks and introduce some % burn fee for those who want to get their SP faster. But interesting proposals here, thanks everyone for contributing :)

22.01.2020 18:20
0

Why do people forget the main purposes of Steem Power?

Locking half of the rewards is one of those purposes. We ruined the STEEM price by shortening the powering down period. We promise users a profit from nowhere.

Users can simply buy STEEM, power up, upvote posts and earn rewards, then say goodbye. Does blockchain owe users something? NO.
No free money! You should give something in return for the MILKING reward pool.
Giving something means locking down your investment which gives VALUE to the STEEM that we milk.

Ok. Make power downs shorter and let's milk STEEM together. Aim for $0

22.01.2020 18:24
0

Users can simply buy STEEM, power up, upvote posts and earn rewards, then say goodbye.

right, and it will happen even more when price is higher, and the dump can be faster too.

22.01.2020 19:46
0

Actually, I realize that when I was less informed, I was voting FOR this. After reading a post by @theycallmedan, I have gained a little more understanding of the financial aspects of this block-chain. I am no expert, but I personally agree with him on leaving it as a 13 week POWER DOWN, but offering an instant POWER DOWN, that requires a burn of a percentage of the POWER DOWN holdings. His initial suggestion was 5%, another said 20%. I think that 5% would be cutting things a little too close, when feeding the other elements of the block-chain, and that 20% is a little too high a price, especially for larger holdings.

In Conclusion: I suggest a continuation of the 13 week POWER DOWN with the option to POWER DOWN instantly. The instant POWER DOWN would require a burn of between 12-15% of the POWER DOWN, holdings.

22.01.2020 18:32
0

I don’t mind the current power down but I’m not closed to the idea of a 4 week power down but I think it should have a % burn let’s say 5% burn of the tokens to get the faster power down that way the person must really be committed to do a quick power down

22.01.2020 18:34
0

The more i think of it the less i know. There are both pros and cons to it which are almost equaly important.
More discusion should be done in order to laverage pros in regards to possible negative aftermath.
But if i had to i would vote for yes

22.01.2020 18:39
0

I see Risk, Risk, Risk. What is the reward? I think 13 is perfect.

22.01.2020 18:39
0

One side note on @thecryptodrive proposal: it is certainly helpful as some rough gauge of sentiment, but it's not exactly a great one, because the SPS was built to distribute funds among competing projects, not to get political consensus on hard forks. Originally, I was thinking it could be useful for that as well, but it clearly doesn't work that way. For example, I can't vote "against" this proposal except by voting for the "refund proposal", which would cutoff real funds being paid to active workers, which I would prefer to avoid.

If we do want to get a better polling of stake-based opinion using the SPS, the solution is to create two proposals: one "for" and one "against" during the same time period, then let voters vote on the two competing proposals. With such a method, it would also be good to set a "determination" date at which the two vote counts would be compared, to measure prevailing opinion. Both proposals should also be created at the same time, to give each opinion equal time to accumulate votes.

22.01.2020 18:42
0

Agreed, I am not a fan of using the SPS as a polling system. Two proposals would be better, but I think there is still network effects of people who look at the proposals and vote the higher one without even knowing about the lower.

22.01.2020 19:08
0

A small tweak could be made, probably even without any blockchain-level changes (only UI), to tag the two proposals as alternatives with some metadata and display them together as such.

22.01.2020 20:21
0

We can't upvote/downvote a steemit post?

24.01.2020 04:04
0

You can as far as I know

24.01.2020 04:07
0

I was meaning as a way to measure support for proposals.
Downvote if you are against adoption.

24.01.2020 06:36
0

There is no downvote against proposals. It was originally envisioned as a funding system and the way it works for funding is everything above the return line gets funded and anything below the return line does not.

Since it is now being used for polls, we have decided to promote a convention where there is one proposal FOR and one AGAINST. An AGAINST proposal was added for the 4-week change, so people who oppose the idea can now vote directly against it.

24.01.2020 11:20
0

Good thinking, still seems simpler to use a post instead of a proposal.
Though that would result in autovoting conflicts, I'm sure.
Steem on.

24.01.2020 17:43
0

The for and against convention is a good idea, though I don't think a set "result" date is really needed. The purpose is really to get a 'sense' of stakeholder sentiment and that changes over time too. Even if the 'result date' says one thing, by the time a fork got implemented, deployed and was ready to activate, stakeholder consensus could be different. IMO, if the balance of sentiment is so close that it requires a careful rule to determine the winner, there is no real consensus either way and it probably makes sense to continue working to try to build one.

Yeah I agree with some of the comments about SPS not being an ideal polling system, but it is the best we have and creating something only a little bit better would be a lot of work for a small payoff. It would also risk having even lower participating by splitting up attention into more and more separate voting systems.

22.01.2020 20:08
0

I agree a result date isn't strictly needed, I just think it could be a useful way to have a clear point in time from which to discuss the results, mainly one that is not too early.

As far as consensus changes after that point, I agree they shouldn't be ignored. I almost said similar things in my original comment, so I'm glad you brought this up. Instead of calling it a determination date, maybe it's better to phrase it as an initial consensus date.

22.01.2020 20:38
0

"Initial consensus date" makes sense. It is somewhat similar to having a delayed start date on funding, to give people a chance to get votes in place first.

22.01.2020 20:47
0

Yes, I also think it's "good enough" with the "two proposal" method. Good enough because a) it's non-binding to begin with and b) because I agree it's not worth the effort to create something better.

22.01.2020 20:44
0

@thecryptodrive, would you be willing to make a mirror SPS proposal to your 4-week one, so we could get collect stakeholder votes against the change?

IMO it would help reduce confusion to make the proposal look as much like the other one as possible, except being against the change rather than for it.

Clearly the "for" proposal has a head start in terms of gaining votes, but over a bit of time we should be able to assess things clearly.

I'm am somewhat concerned that without a clear method of voting/polling, the issue will be clouded by: a) people making the most noise in threads being given undue weight relative to stake, and b) people who are less comfortable following and participating in discussions in English not being considered, even if they may have large stake.

23.01.2020 02:13
0

yeah sure

24.01.2020 06:09
0

the solution is to create two proposals: one "for" and one "against" during the same time period

At last, someone answered my question and provided a solution just as my temperature was approaching critical. I find this place so confusing!

23.01.2020 09:48
0

For example, I can't vote "against" this proposal except by voting for the "refund proposal"

Exactly. This system clearly is not designed or effective for voting on whether or not a change should be added to an upcoming HF, or anything else where we are striving for consensus. This is simply tracking whether or not there is enough support for something to get the funding it needs.

Whoever thought of a voting system where you really only get to vote "yes"...

The below mentioned two proposals at least allows for disagreement, but without linking the two proposals, most people would probably only see one of them anyway.

23.01.2020 20:37
0

I think the two proposal idea is adequate, if not ideal. It might get messy if there were a really large number of proposals, but with the current number, I think it's a workable method for now.

23.01.2020 20:48
0

I upvoted this for visibility, not because I agree, but because I disagree wholeheartedly.

The math here is really simple.

Price is a function of supply and demand. If supplies increase faster than demand then the price goes down. Powering up is a simple method of taking supplies off the table without burning them. Essentially it pushes that supply to some point in the future. Powering down says "let this supply become liquid".

I would argue that having the power down at 13 weeks is already too short. 13 weeks is already ~90 days though and for any serious business building on top of steem, 90 days or 1 business quarter is enough time to plan. It would be far better to set this to 52 weeks or 1 calendar year if you're going to change it at all.

Steem is fundamentally different from other currencies. While speculators are useful in most currencies because they provide liquidity. Speculators are not good for this currency, because the power of this currency is the community behind it, literally. Our thoughts, our ideas, our hopes, dreams, goals. When someone buys steem with the intention of powering it up, it's because they see value in you, me, all of us.

This is because Steem is a participatory economy. And the way you participate is by powering up your steem and using the prestige to bring attention to the people, purposes and messages that you feel are worthy to share in the increase. If you change the power down from 13 weeks to 4 weeks there will be several knock on effects that damage the currency.

1 The increase in liquidity will lower the purchasing power of each steem already in circulation because it is a direct supply increase. The differential multiplier is 0.325 or put another way. Assuming the current price of steem is $0.20 the price would necessarily drop to $0.06. You can bet that speculators would immediately price this in before the drop by removing buy orders and putting a new floor in at $0.06

2 The increase in supplies and subsequent drop in purchasing power would lower the value of the already beleaguered SBD. Some people would flock to it in order to offset the pending drop, but all this does is increase the supply of SBD circulating. SBD is currently trading at $0.80 and thus could reasonably expected to drop to almost immediately $0.26. This means that speculators would remove pricing supports in order to price in the increased supply and begin repricing all the way down to the bottom.

But wait it gets worse!

Anything that effects supplies will trigger a bullwhip effect in the supplychain in the direction that supplies headed. This is because people need to earn a profit or they won't play.

Consider for a minute BTC. Every 4 years the amount of new supplies entering circulation is cut in half. 18 months later the price goes up over 10x it's previous all time high. This is despite the fact that in the 6 to 9 months leading up to the halvening, the price has consistently doubled which intuitively speaking would be where the speculators were already pricing in the halvening.

BTC is cutting new supplies in half and seeing 10x increases over all time highs. We are talking about increasing supplies 3 fold! This means that we could expect prices to dip as low as 3% of all time lows, in otherwords it is reasonable to expect that if you do this, prices for steem would drop to less than a penny.

Now of course all this math is extremely simplistic, but it is the math that any speculator will be doing.

So if you really want to invite the speculators in to drive up prices, double the interest rate on SP and double the power down time to at least 6 months. This will mop up excess supplies which will drive the price through the roof and higher prices help everyone.

22.01.2020 18:47
0

Every change comes with a lot of indirect cost, this change isn't bringing clear and direct benefit. It's a zero sum change, it's not smart enough.

It was suggested that new reward from inflation should stay staked for longer, like 6 months, while purchased one get to power down as usual or faster. The main reason for previous 2 year or 13 weeks delay was so new users get to participate in curation and get to adapt to the ecosystem and the culture.

This is changing for sake of changing and expecting better outcome at random.

IMO it's a ridiculous distraction given the current state of Steem and if anything shows how much witnesses lack in skill and creativity.

22.01.2020 18:48
0

Every change comes with a lot of indirect cost, this change isn't bringing clear and direct benefit. It's a zero sum change, it's not smart enough.

True. And change the rules ( like in computer games) have often horrible side effects that destroy a game.

22.01.2020 19:27
0

I believe in freedom. One should be free to join and free to leave when one wants to. The platform, the community, the projects should be enticing enough to keep users powered for long term.

Safety wise, does the blockchain needs to hold the users’ hands? With cryptography, we already have very secure credentials. Is it the role of the blockchain to protect the users or is it the role of the dApps to highlight potential scams/phishing attempts and educate their users? Education will have long term impact on and outside the chain. A topic to further discuss.

That being said, I was initially for the idea but now I don’t think reducing to 4 weeks is the solution. I don’t think instant power down is the solution either, at least not on its own.

Instant power down is better but still not ideal. @therealwolf’s idea of an incentive for powering up for longer term is interesting.

As for now, I’m against implementing a reduction of the power down period in the next HF until further discussion and agreeing on a better solution that offers freedom and speed but also safety via customisation and maybe an opt-in locking mechanism.

Posted using Partiko iOS

22.01.2020 18:49
0

Setting @likwid as beneficiary let you to skip the power down entirely for a 1% fee.
Since very few people use it, it could give us a rough idea of how much demand there is for faster power down.

22.01.2020 19:10
0

This is true for the bloggers earning, but not true for the guy hodling 2M steem. It doesn't address the importance of liquidity in crypto if things are going down fast.

23.01.2020 03:26
0

With 2m Steem you better sell over the course of 13 weeks otherwise you'll crash the price. Sad but benefits everyone.

23.01.2020 04:06
0

50k, 10k even 1000 STEEM. Whatever someone's stake is, it might well be enough to be important to them.

There are some days when you could probably sell 2M STEEM or close to it without crashing the market, but they are rare. You definitely don't always need 13 weeks to do it, although sometimes even 13 weeks might not be long enough.

23.01.2020 06:00
0

You don't find smaller fish paying to power down significantly for a very good reason – they need to use their funds. They are earning the token in order to leverage it, to turn it into something else – something usable. They are not investing those funds in order to vote more things up because they recognize their votes mean absolutely nothing in terms of value to others or themselves, so there's no significant benefit to powering up, they end up holding a lot of liquid STEEM/SBD, and then they either decide that they can sell it for another cryptocurrency they can buy something with or they hold it just as long as it takes for the perceived value to be worth selling off for something else.

Note that they can't do that second part and power up. It is directly antithetical to using the token to lock it in a box and keep you from using it.

In effect, the 13 week power down trickle is most devastating to the smaller holder. It provides them good reason to not invest in the platform, to not make use of what tiny amount of power their given, and keep themselves free to actually use token for trade.

The guy holding 2 million STEEM isn't earning a notable amount, percentagewise, from writing posts and posting pictures on the blockchain. He's a speculator. He may or may not even have an idea of what "value to a social media based blockchain" actually means. By observation, he probably doesn't, nor should he.

Effectively, a 13 week power down simply centralizes more power in the hands of whales and gives anyone smaller good reason not to invest and not to be involved. Which, not to put too fine a point on it, fits with the rest of the design.

23.01.2020 17:07
0

This is why the bloggers that seek to earn STEEM need to also demand that the places they need to buy stuff from start to accept STEEM. If bloggers didn't dump on the exchanges the STEEM would likely be worth more and the bloggers would be getting richer due to this.

Additionally, if the businesses noticed that content producers want to spend STEEM with these businesses, the businesses might power up and grow their customer acquisition within the Steem community.

24.01.2020 19:46
0

That's not their job. The job of a blogger is to write stuff that people want to read and try to get compensated for doing so. If a platform wants to be the choice of bloggers who want to get compensated, they need to provide compensation. Compensation that people can spend and get use of.

That is, after all, the ultimate point of compensation. Nobody works to get paid to stick that pay in a hole. They work to get paid to buy stuff. Since the only way to do that with STEEM is to dump it on doing exchange because nobody wants to take in exchange for something useful, that's what people do.

Neither businesses nor creators have any reason to go out of their way to enable STEEM when there are 10,000 alternatives (or even three) which do what they want it to do. Exchanges make it extremely easy to care very little about that core mechanic, and so both creators and businesses don't.

An entire community of creators on the Steem blockchain have been wanting, very publicly, to be able to spend their resources on useful crap for years. Everybody knows it. At no point has it ever been particularly easy and in fact remains an uphill battle because the obsession is for holding a token and not for actually using a token.

Putting it up on an exchange is effectively indistinguishable from spending it on anything else. If anything, it pushes down the actual value of the token because it will inevitably have to be exchanged in order to be useful. And yet, people such as yourself continue to demonize both exchanges and the people who want to get some good out of their work by using them.

That is a core problem with the Steem blockchain as an economic engine.

24.01.2020 20:47
0

"That's not their job" is something a person not understanding money would say. A person smart about money is happy to make anything their job if it helps their bottom line.

The reason I said what I said is because while it is "not their job" it would benefit them and everyone on Steem.

The authors dumping is hurting the price, so much so is this true that @SBDpotato and @burnpost are two projects designed to reduce overall rewards going to authors, they siphon the value and send it to @null to fuck the authors over.

Authors could help themselves by urging local businesses to accept STEEM, but sure, I guess because "its not their job" they can just keep getting paid less STEEM valued at less USD.

Sir, I believe you deserve to know that you do not understand this stuff very well and should probably read more comments and write fewer ones.

30.01.2020 02:49
0

We discussed this topic and I'm for the 4 week powerdown. However, considering the security risks mentioned in case of a phish/hack, the stolen chunks would be greater than the current 13 week setting. To remedy that, I proposed a few extra options for a variable power down:

  • Ability to set the power down period, if people are concerned about security or wish a long term commitment, set to a long period, for investors and techy people tight on security who don't want to be stuck holding a bag of cryptos, set to short.
  • Value can't be modified before 30 days, to avoid account compromise.
  • Can't modify before 30 days if owner key/password are changed.
  • Leave the default at 13 weeks.

Those proposed changes will require additional coding.

Concerning the fee burn to accelerate the power down, I disagree with it and I don't think it solves anything, because a hacker can still burn the fee and steal the funds quickly anyways. Also, burning a fee is like a tax, the purpose of the crypto space is to escape such a burden. Besides, investors and new comers already pay fees to buy bitcoin then buy STEEM from an exchange. So we wanna ask them to pay more fees to get their money back? I don't think so.

One important aspect of a currency is the ability to trade it. It's ok to see pumps and dumps, it happens all the time for all cryptos. So I don't think reducing the power down period would affect STEEM's price (we already have common spikes anyways). But, giving more control and flexibility to the users would definately increase the value of the token, not diminish it. This way, if new users would like to buy, power up and participate in the platform, they can do so without much strings attached, instead of being forced into a non-negotiable 13 weeks commitment.

22.01.2020 19:11
0

I like the power up with the conservative default 'choose your own adventure' idea!

23.01.2020 01:07
0

I personally like the 4 wk powerdown idea.. instant for a 10% fee minimum

22.01.2020 19:17
0

I'm against such a change. I very much agree with the concerns expressed by @aggroed and @blocktrades. Also see my exchange with @thecryptodrive here.

22.01.2020 19:19
0

LET THE DUMPENING BEGIN!!!

Cg

22.01.2020 19:28
0

Personally I'm on the fence about this. I see value in changing it to 4 weeks, as I have personally heard from people with a lot of liquid steem they don't power up specifically because of the long power down cycle makes them nervous. I have been in this position myself where I had a lot of Steem I earned liquid through development and posting and I held off powering it up because I would need to wait 13 weeks to get it out. 13 weeks in crypto is a lifetime.

That being said, there are many reasons not to change it. Hacking is of course one of them, but as long as the power down and longer than account recovery the risk is minimized. Currently 4 weeks (28 days) is shorter than 30 days it takes to change the recovery account for a user.

Another thing to consider is Exchanges powering up Steem and using it to influence witnesses and rewards. Right now the 13 weeks discourages this, would 4 weeks? Exchanges could even go so far to reward users that allow them to power up their funds in exchange for profiting with it. They can also potentially do this without their permission and only use a portion of the funds keeping enough liquid to handle any immediate needs.

I also worry abusers will be able to move their stake quicker and easier with a shortened powerdown when their accounts get burned. I see this happen a lot even with 13 week powerdown.

I am not concerned with technical issues as this change has been done before and is a simple change. As mentioned in the post, this is all about the economic issues. Without a crystal ball it is really hard to know for sure if we would have more people powering up as a result of this change. We do know a lot of people are powering down now and always will be regardless of this change. We need more reasons to encourage being powered up in my opinion.

As I said, I am conflicted, I see both sides of this argument. I do believe the hacking issue can be minimized by changing the proposal to 5 weeks instead of 4. One thing I thought of when this was first brought up as requirement seniority before being able to elect a shorter powerdown. For example, an account needs to be 6 months or even 12 months old before you can elect for a shorter powerdown, this would help alleviate the concerns of new users falling victim to hacking and also not having time to learn the system before leaving.

While I don't believe anything that holds someone hostage to force them to do something has ever been successful, there are benefits for being powered up and they should not be earned without sacrifice, the sacrifice with Steem is liquidity.

I do believe if we are making a change we believe will help our economics, we should try to do them now and not some time in the future. I just can't say with 100% certainty this is a good or bad change as it is extremely speculative. The 13 week powerdown is just an arbitrary time period chosen as something better than the original two years, there is no math or science behind it.

22.01.2020 19:30
0

Without a crystal ball it is really hard to know for sure if we would have more people powering up as a result of this change. We do know a lot of people are powering down now and always will be regardless of this change. We need more reasons to encourage being powered up in my opinion.

I think it is pretty clear this change would encourage staying powered up, just as it would encourage new powering up. For pretty much the same reasons: If you have powered up coins and have to wait 13 weeks (a crypto lifetime as you put it) until you get them unlocked, you are more likely to start powering them down now than if you only have to wait 4 weeks (or just one week for 25%).

What we don't know are numbers, but as you say we have enough anecdotal evidence from real people to believe it would make some difference.

22.01.2020 20:44
0

This is actually something I (probably many) haven't thought about. The possibility of exchanges become part of the governance at a whim for their own agenda.

23.01.2020 15:34
0

Don't like themarkymark either? This bot downvotes everything themarkymark posts. Help by delegating:

5 | 10 | 20 | 50 | 100 | 500 | 1000

Unvote themarkymark for witness here

"I've never seen anyone leave such a long trail of blazing dumpster fires. I now believe the wreckless downvoting and blacklisting of thousands of accounts by themarkymark et al is the SOLE reason the price of Steem continues to fall. I didn't even make the photo for this post. That's right, I found it online. Fucking amazing."

Look at all these complaints from people all over the Internet

Most of these are written OFF of Steemit so as to avoid being downvoted and hidden. Amazing. So much for this "censorship-free blockchain".

themarkymark Hey. Sorry about your shit coin...

Groups of people and a top witness (themarkymark) are trying to dive me off of steem/steemit by harassing me

Getting blacklisted (by themarkymark) becomes expensive on Steem

themarkymark & Berniesanders Responsible For Altcoin Collapse?

Is TheMarkyMark Abusing The Steemit Blockchain?

Listen as themarkymark evades questions about his identity and gives up his real motives

The Arrogant "themarkymark"

Dedicated to that unknown mystery douche: themarkymark

@themarkymark Stole Thousands Of $$ From Me

My Letter to @themarkymark - in response to his continual flagging of my account

Harassment and Censorship by themarkymark continues. Now flagging everything I post for no reason

Crooket @themarkymark

@themarkymark, another fake account that flags without reason, like the berniesanders whales circle jerk

Another example of censorhsip on steemit. Witness (themarkymark) downvotes truth about his actions.

Big Thanks For ThemarkyMark, Anyx, Patrice and Others Who Helped Ruin Steemit

Open letter to those who provide Red Flag with downvotes

My Post About Asian Countries Being the Largest Ocean Polluters Was Downvoted By Badcontent. WHY?

I Got Downvoted!?! It's Not Fair! Can You Help Me???

More THIEVES (themarkymark) on Steem Blockchain? Be careful with bidbots...

themarkymark_nzi.png

riffraff.png

Clone this protest bot

23.01.2020 23:30
0

I'm not a fan of this idea, but also I'm not that strongly against it to say "never, ever". Simple change 13 -> 4 is a bad idea. IMHO, we, as a platform are not ready for that.

Security concerns (stolen account recovery)

Please note that stolen account recovery period is now 30 days, which means, that after user was hacked and their key was changed, they have 30 days to:

  1. figure out that it actually happened
  2. start Stolen Account Recovery if account was created by Steemit or figure out how to do that in case of other account creator / recovery partner.
  3. wait for recovery partner to approve recovery request
  4. set the new password, start minimizing damage

There's a pretty good chance that user will miss (1) even if is reasonably active user. Why? Because lack of notifications and UI/UX features.
Most likely, by the time user realize that something is happening 25% of SP will be gone.

It will take some time before user figure out how to perform (2) properly. We are trying to guide users via various communication channels, including Steem.Chat's #help (kudos for @timcliff & others) but such cases are not always easy (Do you remember e-mail you've used while signing up for Steem account through Steemit 3 years ago? What if you no longer have access to it? How about account created with Reddit method?)

I'm not sure how long (3) can take nowadays, but even if a recovery partner is quick, I don't think that there's 24/7 support provided for such free service. Assuming business hours, there's a 64 hour gap on weekends (out of 168 hours). Every bit of complexity requires interaction between user and recovery partner, every interaction introduce additional delays (time zone differences doesn't help).

Abuse

Relatively long power down makes SP holders responsible for their deeds, because the bigger impact they have, the more they have to lose.

Pump, abuse, dump.

Short power down period makes it easy to do that.

When it comes to reward pool abuse, SP holders can of course react and downvote, add to blacklists, automate. Identifying abuse, countering it and tracking takes time and resources. Abuser can simply milk rewards until caught, then quickly move to a different identity and repeat.

Low SP engagement for policing

Amount of SP voting for approved Steem.DAO proposals is very low, much lower than amount of SP that is needed for consensus witnesses.
And that is true even though amount needed for consensus witnesses is also very low.
Not only that.
SP used for countering (downvoting) reward abuse isn't spectacular either.

TL;DR

We move too slow to allow fast moves of SP. It takes considerably long time for community to react, and very low engagement to counter abuse (which makes it cheap & easy).

Steem security assumes that the majority of active SP holders are not malicious, and potential malicious actions comes with a risk of freezing funds for a significant amount of time.

22.01.2020 19:35
0

I support the change to 4 weeks and i believe it will bring more people and also small investors. Not everyone starts using steemit with commitment in mind, all start using it as an experiment and through involvement commitment may come. I think 13 weeks sounds a little suspicious for an outsider and discouraging for a small investor to play around with steem and leave, if he likes. in a short amount of time.

What i see is that we have the committed users in one hand, that produce quality material and engage with the community and on the other, a mass of low quality posts users upload for various reasons. What we do not have is sth in between, people that want to invest, lets say 500$, play the game and leave 1000$ in short time. Use Steem as a side project and pop up from time to time. But they will need flexibility and freedom and the 4 weeks powerdown will play a big part in this.

22.01.2020 19:39
0

You should give importance everyones logic.Decision is yours.

22.01.2020 19:44
0

It is a simple fix. So if this is a desire then it should be a one item stand alone HF, and not part of some other HF. Governments are great at putting in undesirable items in major bills to slow the process of legislation down, do the people in the world of Crypto in Steem Block Chain, want to be viewed as a Standard Governmental Operating Block Chain where they hide the undesirable with the desirable.

If it truly is a system that is decentralized and not Governmentized, then let the proposal stand on it's own merits in it's own HF, and then we will see if the People really wanted it.

22.01.2020 19:55
0

Getting the whole ecosystem upgraded on a hard fork is too disruptive and difficult to do on a whim for every little change. I agree with you conceptually but from a practical perspective we are kind of stuck with one or two planned hardforks per year and have to make the best of it in terms of trading off what goes in them vs. what waits for six months or a year or longer.

23.01.2020 02:34
0

Kind of like the last hard fork when Steemit.inc had an issue with it, an instant fix that was not a full fix was initiated and thus steem block chain was inaccessible for a day and a half, even after a few people saiad they should re-look at the numbers and make sure the rushed fix would not break anything, but nope, it was steemit's call and the witnesses call, and so instead of taking a good look they jumped the gun, and thus down time.

This is not the first time that steemit, or someone associated with steemit, has asked for and gotten what they wanted so why even bother, do they think they are fooling anyone? Take a look at the dPoll they had out for all of 12 hours and then they decided they had an overwhelming support so into the HF it went.

Good ole-boy network wins again.

I really do not think it is a bad idea, I totally think it is a bad idea the way it is being presented to the people/users of steem block chain. Like the American people, they may believe they are free, steemians may believe they are decentralized, but the reality is their is no difference between steemit, (running the HF's), and the US government running the legislation and making the laws. Americans are only as free as the government wants them to be, and steemians are only as decentralized as steemit.inc wants them to be.

At least they are not trying to make it a last minute addition to the HF, I guess they learned their lesson about last minute additions the last time. I ahve read and seen many people talk about the number of hardforks that happen, 2 or 3 hard forks a year in the life of steem block chain don't add up, we are going into HF22? I understand that there were a lot in the initial start of Steem Block Chain, and over the last two years only a couple, but a stand alone HF for a simple change of two numbers in the code is not the last time they said it would be an easy well tested, nothing should go wrong, and then the rush to fix it, it would have been better to have the two separate hard forks last year, the EIP, make sure it worked, then the other stuff.

So even though I do not think it to be a bad idea, it is completely different and separate from SMT's and it is my understanding the next HF is for SMT's. We do not need to be slipping in inappropriate changes to what the HF is supposed to be designed to do, any more than the government should not be slipping in inappropriate additions to bills to avoid them being down voted or vetoed.

23.01.2020 06:36
0

The blockchain launched in March 2016, and HF16 was in December 2016, so literally there were 16 forks in the first year (9 months actually). Since 2017 (3 years) there have only been 6 hard forks, an average of two per year. A couple of those did nothing but fix emergency bugs so in reality the number of planned hard forks that can be used to improve the blockchain has been less than two per year.

23.01.2020 06:54
0

100%!!!

30.01.2020 03:07
0

Strongly opposed.

22.01.2020 20:03
0

It is clear there are users rooting for both sides of the fence, to proceed with the 4 week powerdown, or not.

Although we are generally supportive of giving more flexibility to the Steem users, and we had voted the relevant SPS, yet we did have a discussion several months back about this same topic on slack, and were more inclined to support a more restrictive approach, whereby the condition to move ahead with a fast power down, requires burning of a portion of the funds being powered down. This would be more valuable and create a win win situation.

Additional supporting points against the move include the security concerns, which many have already pointed out in the comments. Those are very valid IMHO, and need to be taken into consideration as security and loss of funds is of top priority.

Based on the reasons above, we believe the move ahead with the change requires extensive study and formulation, the basis of which can be a wealth of great comments and feedback within this current post, and hence we believe this change should not be part of the upcoming HF, as it already includes SMTs as a major functionality.

22.01.2020 20:15
0

I am strongly supporting this Power Down Notion. In my personal view:

  1. It will attract more consumers to the platform since the liquidation period will be reduced hence quicker and on point cash out.
  2. It will help more increase the Power Up stats since people will know it's quite quick to cash out.
  3. A penalty for early Power Down aint necessary cause you don't know my reason for powering Up a milli steem coins. Prolly its my safe haven and I got grudges with my local banking services. Steemit being decentralised should not penalize early power downs. That shows that the system is centralised and to add on that point, Powering up my steem is not in anyway comparable to staking my fixed savings account and breaking it before the prime time. Steemit is a different case.
  4. 4 weeks power down will help increase the rate at which prominent steemers post using this platform since....you know...its a quick cash out as usual 😎
  5. This will attract more developers using other currencies such as ethereum which is a tad competition for steem.
  6. It will increase the transaction rates in the blockchain system and that might help change the price on a regular basis. I need to wake up to $10 per steem. Powering Down my first week doesn't mean am quitting the platform. I am my own captain and I sink with the ship
  7. 13 weeks compared to 4 weeks is relatively exhibits a grand transit in that I will be calculating my SP Power Down In terms of quarterly basis instead of 13 weeks. 4 weeks = 1 week 13 weeks =3-3.5 months. Such a long time.

I gave 7 solid reasons for 7 week days.

I accept steem tips and engine tokens on the regular. Help boost you friendly minnow pal.

22.01.2020 20:16
0

Personally it seems like a bad idea to change the powerdown system, if something works well do not change it.

22.01.2020 20:19
0

I am for reducing it to 4 weeks only because all SMTs will follow it until custom power down for SMTs is implemented otherwise I believe it won't bring any real benefit for the risks already mentioned by others.
Ideally I want users to stake as long as they want but there must be incentive to stake for long aside from extra security. Here's my proposed implementation from my discussion with @therealwolf from some time before.

Instead of higher APR from staking for longer period, what do you think about witness and SPS voting power multiplier?
For example we can stake for 1 week, 2 weeks, 3 weeks, and so on with upper limit.
STEEM staked for 1 week has x1 voting power multiplier for witnesses and SPS
STEEM staked for 2 weeks has x2 voting power multiplier for witnesses and SPS
STEEM staked for 3 weeks has x3 voting power multiplier for witnesses and SPS
up to the upper limit
This will be very simple to implement (at least compared to separate inflation pools or multitiered privileges you propose above and I proposed before on thecryptodrive's post) and comes with completely custom stake periods. Power down will need a rework like example below:
An account has 100 STEEM staked for 2 weeks and 20 STEEM staked for 3 weeks, they start a power down.
After 1 week passes since power down is initiated the account will have 100 STEEM staked for 1 week and 20 STEEM staked for 2 weeks.
After 2 weeks passes since power down is initiated the account will have 100 liquid STEEM and 20 STEEM staked for 1 week.
After 3 weeks passes since power down is initiated the account will have 120 liquid STEEM

This implementation allows minnows to have a say on governance if they are willing to stake for a long time while whales that only seek to milk the system won't dare to stake for long. The maximum duration exists to prohibit people to stake for like 100 years to gain ridiculous vote multiplier, just set the maximum to 104 weeks (or just 100) like the old powerdown timer.
When thinking about combining it with burn instant powerdown @theycallmedan proposed, the burn fee can scale with the stake duration (ex: 1 week stake have 1% fee for instant powerdown, 2 week stake have 2% fee, and so on)
This implementation is definitely way more complex than just changing a variable but I believe it's win-win for absolutely everyone except abusers.

22.01.2020 20:46
0

I like the idea where it requires a token burn

22.01.2020 20:57
0

No. Why? Who wants this?

Posted using Partiko Android

22.01.2020 21:02
0

I believe that the most fun time using Steem/Steemit was during 2nd half of 2017 to 1st half of 2018. Especially in the Korean community, there were loads of famous people/bloggers moved to Steemit during this time. One of my Steemit posts was selected as top 3rd number of views, and it was pretty exciting seeing my Steemit article shared via a variety of platforms outside, attracting other bloggers joining Steemit.

The reason why this time was the most fun is NOT all about the price peak. It was all about the people. Don't get me wrong. I'm not talking about the royal people. It was the time when ALL KIND OF PEOPLE were gathering in Steemit such as royal Steemiana, bloggers, investors, gamblers, abusers, ... It was the most time when there were a huge amount of conflicts, fighting, argument, and so much more things were happening.

I strongly believe that attracting a large number of people who comes from all different backgrounds/needs should be the most important core rather than letting only royal people stay in this place. Why? It's so simple. It gives a fun, more value, more reason to be royal for some people, and more attractive reason to invest on my valuable money and time.

For this reason, I completely agree with this proposal.

p.s.: I invested over $40K my personal money on Steem, powering up, and never power down till now, and the money becomes less than $3K. But I DID NOT POWER DOWN BECAUSE of the 14 weeks power-down period. **People who need power down will do anyway regardless of the power down period limitation, and this SHOULDN'T be our core to maintain.

22.01.2020 21:05
0

I completely agree with this proposal and reply of @project7 too.

23.01.2020 00:54
0

agree 4 weeks power-domn ~gogo~

23.01.2020 04:17
0

Are you in favour of this proposal or rather in favor of a dynamic power-down period? Because this proposal will only allow people to choose between 4 and 13 weeks. That's still far too rigid for the diverse culture we have here.

p.s.: I invested over $40K my personal money on Steem, powering up, and never power down till now, and the money becomes less than $3K. But I DID NOT POWER DOWN BECAUSE of the 13 weeks power-down period. People who need power down will do anyway regardless of the power down period limitation, and this SHOULDN'T be our core to maintain.

Just making sure I understood this correctly:

You didn't power down, because of the 13 weeks period? Afterwards, you're writing that "people who need to power--down will do that, regardless of the period limitation". Isn't this exactly the opposite of your reasoning?

23.01.2020 09:16
0

I agree with the 4 weeks power down period (I'm sorry but I'm not aware of the dynamic power down period you mentioned). Thanks for your comment. I fixed some confusing words.

23.01.2020 09:29
0

He should have used a double negative. What he meant is: I did not not powerdown because of the 13 weeks period.

As in, he kept his stake for Steem reasons, not friction reasons.

23.01.2020 10:32
0

I completely agree to your opinion.

26.01.2020 03:19
0

If the insiders make this change, it's not because it will benefit the community or the platform, it's because it will benefit them. That's how we got HF20 and HF21 with the NewSteem cult. Every "fix" ends up actually being another problem, another reason for the Steem price to crash, another thing keeping people from signing up here, another thing forcing content-creators away. This will get rid of the whale abuse! This will get rid of bots! This will get rid of spam! This will get rid of reward pool rape! All promises so that changes are accepted. It's the Hegelian dialectic - problem, reaction, solution. They have a solution in mind, so they create or bring up a problem, and the community reacts (or just acquiesces), and the solution is implemented.

"Feedback wanted" is a lie. Whenever you see "feedback wanted about " on Steemit, it means has already been decided by the insiders, and is about to happen.

Here comes 4 week power downs, everybody!

22.01.2020 21:34
0

I feel you bruh bruh.

23.01.2020 04:04
0

SOMEHOW THESE WANKERS REMIND ME OF JOCOB ROTCHILD!

27.01.2020 04:54
0

If changing this is as easy as making a 13 a 4, why the fug are we paying a proposal to do it?
Does coding time really cost this much?
I'm smelling a rat.

I'm a no, on 4 weeks, but 10 might be ok.
Get ten percent out a week.

What i haven't seen optioned is changing the weekly payout to a daily payout.
Shortening the initial wait to 5 days, from the current 7, would help, too.

Start your powerdown, 5 days later you begin daily payouts totaling 10% a week.

I'm sure this option will take too much time away from the walkabout, so instead, it is my opinion we should change the 13 to 52, and see how folks like that.

22.01.2020 21:42
0

The proposal is only used as a "poll". It has minimal budget (I believe required to create the proposal) and the proposal pays directly back to the @steem.dao account so no one gets any payment from it.

What i haven't seen optioned is changing the weekly payout to a daily payout

Interesting idea. Off the top of my head: the advantage of getting some funds sooner vs. the disadvantage of always losing funds to a hack even if caught within a few days. Also possibly somewhat more involved of a coding change, although I'd guess still quite easy.

23.01.2020 02:38
0

84 hours gets tedious them last few hours, imo.
Daily payouts just makes sense, much better than weekly.
Not less than 10 weeks, for me.
There has to be some rules, or there is no game.

I saw that the proposal was only a few sbd, after i went to check, and I'm sure tcd would not try to enrich himself disreputably, but it does seem an odd choice in referendum mechanisms, to me.
Misleading in that it funds nothing.

Maybe we should prioritize a community voting mechanism, instead of making the dumpers even more liquid?
Make more reasons to hold steem rather than holding open the door for folks that strip our shareholder value with a dapper tip of their hats and hearty 'thank you, suckers'?

Why isn't witness vote decay on the agenda?
Or, witness downvotes?
Or, upping the downvote pool to 35%?
Or, dropping the voting penalty to 10 steem from 20?

23.01.2020 03:36
0

odd choice in referendum mechanisms, to me.
Misleading in that it funds nothing.

It is a bit convoluted but it is really the only way we have to poll while securely accounting for stake in the same manner that would apply for hard forks.5%?

Or

23.01.2020 03:57
0

The economic risc is too high in my opinion! A I notice since many months, too many people are powering down and after that change there probably would be much more, resulting in more and more people leaving the platform. A decisive NO, please keep the 13 weeks powerdown time.

22.01.2020 21:59
0

I'm all for 4 weeks power down. We need more powerful investors to try steem. They won't lock their money for 13 weeks just to try it. But, for a month they more likely do so, to try it how it works. If they like it, they will stay, if not leave. We can't forse anyone to stay even if it's more than 13 weeks. It will be also easier for steemians to invite people and to teach them about steem. I hope this change will be implemented soon. 19 million steem power voted on it !

22.01.2020 22:10
0

Do it!

Users who like SP will have it powered up. No matter what.

It always looks sleazy when you are presented with extreme lock-ups.

Posted using Partiko Android

22.01.2020 22:20
0

Four weeks or thirteen weeks? Look as a user sometimes I do need money urgently and powering down instantly could be a great option (Ok right now price is so low powering down is really not a good idea, not with the SP I have). But instant has its drawbacks the main one security, are we willing to forfeit security for the chance to withdraw our funds as soon as we want them? But if we do need it urgently and its not instant I don't see the difference between thirteen weeks or four weeks, I still wouldn't get the money on time. So weighing these in I think personally I would vote to remain with the thirteen week system, it is less risky.

22.01.2020 22:20
0

!giphy moon

22.01.2020 22:41
0




giphy is supported by witness untersatz!

22.01.2020 22:42
0

I agree with 4 weeks power down, but as far as I know, someone told me in order to recover your key, it requires at least 1 week.

So, my conclusion is If the period of key recovery is maximum 3 days, I definitely agree with this!

22.01.2020 22:54
0

good stuff! and now for a cigarette.

22.01.2020 22:57
0

I don't like this change at all, specially due to the security concerns, I feel safe knowing that if my account gets compromised, I'll have enough time to react and not lose out on much most likely... although I am someone willing to compromise and I feel like it would be better to settle it @ 10 weeks, that way you power down 10% of your account each week, nice and comfy math, doesn't make me nervous as 4 weeks and its still a good chunk for those that want to sell on high pumps.

22.01.2020 23:12
0

You should keep your money in a bank then. The government, at least mine, will reimburse you up to 400k HRK which is about 60k USD if the bank fails.

23.01.2020 15:36
0

Firm 'No' from me.
We could bypass the issue entirely by having an option to make SP transferable; but only when the account is started.
Choose your account name and select whether/not SP should be transferable. (default 'Off' for security reasons) with no option to change it.
Existing users would need to start a new account; power down and send STEEM to the new account; but then they could buy and sell SP like they do with STEEM.
If I plan to power it up anyway, I'd rather buy SP at a discount from a guy who wants to move out quickly. Let the market decide the size of the haircut.

22.01.2020 23:18
0

I'm against the proposal as well. Just expressing my vote.

Posted using Partiko Android

22.01.2020 23:25
0

I completely stand with @blocktrades and @aggroed on this. There is no need to reduce the powerdown to 4 weeks because of the severe economic consequences of such actions. Those who can't stand the 13 weeks powerdown period should rather not power up their Steem. What I honestly see with those pushing for 4 weeks is that they want to have their cakes and eat it. I say NO to the proposal.

22.01.2020 23:53
0

Steem.DAO function is for funding projects, not creating proposals. Furthermore, I don´t like the name of Steem proposals. It is a business incubator, a crowdfunding system... I do not know what exactly name use to describe it, but it´s not (and should never be) a voting system in my opinion.

I would only consider the comments of the proposal post (and this one too), not the number of votes or their stake value at @steem.DAO

I would like to see the debate at @steemalliance too

I am against any change in the power down system, but I appreciate the debate.

22.01.2020 23:57
0

Gracias por comunicarnos esta información, yo no sabia eso, pero la verdad prefiero que no cambie tanto la red, apenas la estoy entendiendo como es ahora, jajajaj.

23.01.2020 01:15
0

Leave steem power up as is at 13 weeks. Make the savings bucket a quasi power up that gets stripped of delegation, witness and sps voting rights, but lets you vote content, and gives you resources. Leave the withdrawal at 3 days or make it instant, build clear warnings into the UI. That way, only the people who vest for 13 weeks get a say in how the show is run, get improved security. The pop tart traders can pop tart to their hearts content.

Not many use savings anyhow...

23.01.2020 01:20
0

Interesting idea 🧐

23.01.2020 03:58
0

Terrible idea. One of the reasons be get to vote up/down and earn rewards is that it is essentially interest for staking. You're suggesting removing the time-locked requirement to obtain inflation, which makes no sense. The incentive to stake is to have control over governance but to get a share of the inflation. Steem was designed as a sort of Certification of Deposit system, without the time-locked aspect, there is no justification in paying out inflation rewards to stakers.

24.01.2020 19:20
0

You could place it in a lower tier for inflation payout. I think @therealwolf had suggested a multi-tier approach.

24.01.2020 19:43
0

Only acceptable if reward from inflation was directly related to time-lock length. A 4 week powerdown is so short there is no justification in offering a reward pool at all.

Now, if Steemit Inc. wanted to do a hardfork that removed the reward pool for STEEM, and make STEEM exclusively about RCs, then yeah, I'd be down. Just make all inflation go toward witnesses and staked interest and increase interest rate by time-lock length and you have a nice design right there. Then the PoB reward system could be exclusive to SMTs.

That is a hardfork I could go for, but there is no justification for providing interest to people not locking their stake up for a good length of time. The whole design of STEEM was that inflation would be paid out to those increasing the value of STEEM, benefiting all parties including those owning circulating supply.

The 8% inflation is only justified if price goes up for circulating, which depends on those locking up supply.

30.01.2020 02:36
0

Don't even go there. How much money has been invested so far, and you want to change the rules? What else do you want to change? The rate at which STEEM is created? The ability to make major economic changes to the blockchain does not make for a stable platform for the currency. My advice is to delete this post so you don't lose credibility.

Answer: Hell NO!

23.01.2020 01:25
0

This seems like a bad idea to me. It seems like it is a feature that might be desirable for speculators and others who like high volatility. Thirteen weeks seems like a short time to me relative to traditional investments, not a long time. My understanding is that an aspiration for the Steem blockchain is mainstream adoption, and I think features which favor volatility and speculation work against that. Additionally, people who don't want their value tied up behind the powerdown window already have a solution: liquid steem. Why do they need a second one, at the expense of all the risk this change poses to the economy?

23.01.2020 01:37
0

I don't know what the process should be, but it would be nice to have some higher Steem prices. Also, we should either get SBD to $1 or get rid of it. It is the least stable "stablecoin" out there. Sure, it was great when it went over $10 but if it isn't maintaining at least $1 something needs to change. Others have pointed out that it is possible to have SP delegated anyway, which brings up a good point.

23.01.2020 01:42
0

We can clearly see this change will be approved but a lot of folks seem to be against it!

23.01.2020 01:46
0

My thoughts exactly.

23.01.2020 03:56
0

Whose idea is this "4 week power down"?
Who suggest it?
I guess we must know so that we will know how reputable or how expert or how experience this person is.
And we will know the history of this person and could weigh things further for a good rebuttal on the idea he presented.

23.01.2020 01:48
0

Will this effect on vote Value?

23.01.2020 02:08
0

Reducing the powerdown period to 4 weeks is not a good idea imo, and will not attract new people as 4 weeks powerdown is still a time delay that still deters people from powering up. All it does is allow hackers to have access to larger portion of the funds in 7 days.

I would say keep the powerdown period at 13 weeks and allow users to opt-in an ability to do an instant powerdown with a 5% burn with their owner key, which will only take effect after the 30-day account recovery window. They will be warned by the interface that "by proceeding with this operation, your funds stored in vesting will no longer be secured with the time delay". Of course, users can do the reverse and disable the instant powerdown, which takes effect immediately (no 30-day waiting period) and can safely be done with an active key.

The instant powerdown feature may be initially set to be enabled/disabled at account creation.

23.01.2020 02:12
0

To be honest, Steem is the only cryptocurrency where I have my own privet keys and truly feel like my funds are protected and safe from hackers and or being lost. I feel that changing the powerdown time is a huge security risk and I would oppose it 100%

23.01.2020 02:24
0

I am an investor. Not a fan of 4 week powerdown. Not sure what purpose it would serve other than an elevated security risk. People who want a quick flip are in the wrong chain. Didn’t vote the proposal. My main concern is the challenge of governance otherwise we can put some serious money in relatively easily.
Also many people are talking about serious “investors”. I think I am missing something, but if I compare Steem with VC (venture Capital) there is significant lock up period. Most IPOs have 3-6 months lock period. Employees stock options have 1 year or more lock up period. These are all conventional financial interments. Clearly shows a lack of understanding on what people call investor in this tiny 60 million dollar market cap coin!

23.01.2020 02:46
0

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

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

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

And that's not my problem.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is that not sufficiently damning?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

23.01.2020 02:59
0

Ohh my g-d, you did it again... thumbsup

23.01.2020 18:53
0

I can't help it. It's my nature.

23.01.2020 18:57
0

You don't understand the whole point to Steem, and apparently Steemit Inc. forgot as well...

Steem is a time-lock reward system, and you're suggesting the craziest thing ever, which is removing the time-lock. Have you ever heard of a Certificate of Deposit? That is exactly what Steem is!!! Its a Certificate of Deposit system that rewards you with voting power that results in a cut of the inflation for STAKING.

I am absolutely astounded by the amount of crazy I am seeing from people here. Its as if you went to the bank and told them, "hey, there is really no difference between locking up my USD for 12 months or 3 months, so lets make it 3 months, and yeah, I want the same interest rate benefit. Cool? Great..."

You know what would happen if the bank said 'okay'? The whole Certificate of Deposit reward system would go to shit. People get interest for sacrificing something, which is time, thus the "time-locked" aspect. Similarly, the only reason you get to receive upvotes against the reward pool (inflation) is to provide incentive for you to STAKE!!!

You are wanting the incentive to stake to go away or be greatly reduced, which is complete insanity...

Really, really really don't want your STEEM time-locked?

Okay, there's really only one other way to do it. Steem Power could be permanent via STEEM burning. So, the idea would be that you must turn your STEEM into Steem Power, and once done, its a permanent thing, so the only way to get the value out would be by selling the account itself. This is a way to not have to time-lock your STEEM in order to have voting power, but you'd have to more carefully decide just how much Steem Power you really want to have, since its irrevocable.

24.01.2020 19:38
0

Steem is a time-lock reward system, and you're suggesting the craziest thing ever, which is removing the time-lock.

I understand it. I am out right saying that this take on understanding it is both stupid and wrong, and ultimately detrimental to the functioning of the platform both as a social media mechanism and as a system for trade.

See, the problem is that real certificates of deposit have another end. If I, as a state entity or organization, offer a certificate of deposit, what I'm doing is giving you money in exchange for the use of your money for a period of time. And at the end of that period of time, I give you back the money that you gave me along with extra money. The reason that I do that is because that I believe that I take some of your money, aded it to my money, and spend that money in order to make more money by a significant margin, making it reasonable for me to return your money to you along with a user's fee for the pleasure of being able to make more money for myself.

That is not what Steem Power does. In fact, that's the furthest thing from what SP does.

If I choose to lock my SP up, all I get is the possibility of getting some more money in the future. Steemit and I have not decided and negotiated on what I think is a reasonable return on my investment. I do not have choices about who can put that investment with in order to get benefit out of it. There is no other way to make my vested value provide me recourse as a result of my investment. This is absolutely the opposite of a certificate of deposit.

A CD pays off once invested at a known rate. That's the point of the investment; it is a known return on a known value. This is why, for the most part, only state actors issue CDs, because only state actors can guarantee economic valuation. It's for that exact reason that when CDs can't be paid off, it's taken as a terrible signal that the issuing body is on its way out.

Now, compare this to SP. SP merely provides you the possibility of making an unknown gain in the future if and only if you can find a mechanism to engage with the Steem blockchain which keeps all of your SP active at any given point. This activity is impossible to do as a human being. A human being sleeps, a human being creates and consumes content, a human being only has so much attention that they can apply to discovering content to engage with the curation mechanisms, and all of those things are absolutely required in order to get value out of your SP investment. There is no guaranteed outcome for your investment, there is no guaranteed rate for your investment, there is no guaranteed anything for your investment.

And that's why people aren't investing. Because it would be stupid. Locking down your tradable token in an un-tradable architecture in order to be forced to use mechanized means to interact with the blockchain to get any kind of reasonable reward out in the first place, over an undefined amount of time… That's ludicrous.

CDs are understood to fund something on the backend. They are understood to pay out a consistent rate. They are mechanisms of investment which are intended to be more stable and more predictable than other forms of investment including stock trades, bonds, etc.

Locking it down SP does not of that. Zero. Zip. Zilch.

In addition, your parallel to CDs only makes sense in a world in which getting interest from a basic deposit in a checking or savings account doesn't exist. Again, we don't live in that world. We have absolute and irrevocable proof that people are willing to put their money into a bank account which has absolutely no minimum amount of time that funds can sit there before they're spent. This is in significant part responsible for the fact that there are orders of magnitudes more checking and savings accounts than CDs. Because that's what people want to do.

It's also what banks believe they will get a certain amount of profit out of and thus focus on.

And all of this – every single bit of it – is predicated on the idea that the issuing body, the bank, the state agency, the third-party, is taking those funds which are banked or invested and doing something with them which will return more value to everyone involved along the way.

SP is pointedly not doing that. Locking my STEEM up into SP does not actually provide a positive social or economic outcome to anybody. Not even Steemit.

From an underlying fiduciary point of view, this is the worst part. The activity has absolutely no advantage. It has no reason to exist. It gains no one, at any point, good. It provides for no goods, it provides for no improvement, and it hurts small investors the most.

It would be far better and more sensible to drop the idea of banking/CD/investment altogether when talking about SP and instead refer to it as it actually is.

It's a subscription.

By locking SP up, the Steem blockchain effectively demands a subscription cost, based on missed opportunity to spend that token for something someone actually wants, for the opportunity to engage with the "curation system" and maybe gain a little more value.

It's a subscription. It's a subscription to the reward pool access. And, by your own statements and others who are against reducing the lockup time, you acknowledge that the value that one can get out of subscription for a given period of time is well beneath the value that one could potentially have by not locking up the currency. As you say, "you are wanting the incentive to stake to go away or be greatly reduced, which is complete insanity…" If the idea of keeping your money in the bank for the interest you can accrue without being forced to is "insanity," it is insane to keep your money in that bank. If you must be forced to, you acknowledge that the possible valuation is extremely minimal compared to the investment.

I'm acknowledging that's true. I'm going further in saying that it's true in part because the lockup makes it so.

Okay, there's really only one other way to do it. Steem Power could be permanent via STEEM burning. So, the idea would be that you must turn your STEEM into Steem Power, and once done, its a permanent thing, so the only way to get the value out would be by selling the account itself. This is a way to not have to time-lock your STEEM in order to have voting power, but you'd have to more carefully decide just how much Steem Power you really want to have, since its irrevocable.

And what would be the immediate and complete affect of that policy change?

Much less investment. After all, you've already established that the amount of return for locking up your money for 13 weeks is so small that people would not willingly do so unless they were forced to. This is effectively just making the lockup permanent. Absolutely permanent. There is no way to get your money out once you put it into the system. Doing so only gives you the possibility of getting some portion of the reward pool allocated to you in the future assuming that you make maximum use of tools in order to keep as much of that invested SP in motion at all times.

Who would do that? Who would be that stupid? In a real economy with a real currency, that would be a hard sell. There are no real equivalents, not even capital investment because capital can be re-sold in order to extract value from it.

One of the immediate side effects would be that, because identity is tied intimately to your wallet identity, no sensible person would actually keep money in their personal wallet. It would all go into an external account which simply delegates SP back to the original owner and can be liquidated in short order. Effectively, you you would provide impetus for individuals to implement a meta-token represented by throwaway token accounts which can themselves be traded. I'm not saying that wouldn't be, at some level, better than what we have – but it would be utterly stupid.

All of this would be very different if SP vested in the system was useful for something to the system. It's not. It's just a gatekeeper. It defines RC, it defines voting power, it allows – but it doesn't do anything on the other end. It's a money sink.

People invest money with banks and businesses because they know that money is going to be used in order to make more money, some of which is going to be returned to them. Investing in SP does not get used to make more money. It only gatekeeps the possibility that the investor might be able to make more money in the future.

For a more sensible parallel, imagine that SP functioned more like a checking account. You can put in and pull out anytime you want to, but you only earn interest if you carry $500 (for example) as a balance from month to month. That incentivizes keeping more money in the account but doesn't lock the holder into keeping money in the account. The rewards are clear and obvious, and negotiated up front, the incentive is in the right place, and the stakes are clear.

Of course, that will never happen. (And all of the other arguments against requiring balances in bank accounts still hold and explain why a lot of the world's poorest remain un-banked. But that is a discussion for a different time.)

Ultimately, trying to equate SP with CDs is pretty wrongheaded.

24.01.2020 20:40
0

I am not one that likes to be rude, but you wrote many words but those many words resulted in no value whatsoever. I'm sorry to be harsh, but that's the truth.

You simply have no idea what you are talking about. Again, I am sorry to put it so bluntly, but its all I can say.

30.01.2020 02:41
0

I personally think 4 weeks is too short. It makes SP seem less valuable. 7 weeks would be better I believe with the option to burn 5% to unstake in 7 days. ( as @theycallmedan mentioned ).
The sink makes sense, charge those who want out out quickly.

23.01.2020 03:30
0

Stop it. No way we're going to change Steem(it) to a 4 week power down. You might as well just say we're going to make it 3 days.

If you're looking for a way to get the SBD peg back to $1 so you can cash-in on your profits, sure, great idea. If you're thinking about the long-term value of Steem, this is a Terrible idea.

23.01.2020 03:46
0

Nope from me, it seems to be an unnecessary change. It gives people 13 weeks to figure out if their account has been hacked for one and it also incentivizes hodling. There were times when I benefited greatly as the price was rising in 2017. If I received the powerdown quicker I would have lost a ton of money and yes I realize this can go the other way to.

23.01.2020 04:44
0

I'm leaning against this; not because I think we need to hold on to people's stakes but because we have an inherent "structural" problem relating to how Steem is presented — and presents itself — to the world:

Everything here is always presented/marketed in terms of participating here in order to gain current income, rather than gaining from long term price appreciation. Well, if that's what we're telling people... then we're missing the mark on making long-term holding an attractive idea.

From reading all these comments, the closest to anything that makes sense is what @therealwolf offered... instead of penalizing people, or "locking up" their stakes, make it more attractive to commit to a long-term hold. Let's say (only an example) you hold for a year, you get the full inflation gain. Hold for 6 months, you get 75%. Hold for three months... you only get 50%. A month? 25%. And so forth... it's like any pension plan, medical savings plan, even investment plan... IT TAKES TIME TO VEST YOUR STAKE.

Psychology is important here... we may be talking about negligible amounts in terms of real money but people are very funny about "giving up" a higher guaranteed return... it's like losing something, and people hate to lose.

23.01.2020 06:14
0

So, what I like the idea of is for your upvote/downvote power to be determined by both total steem staked and stake length. So if we made this change your Steem Power would no longer be 1:1 for STEEM powered up, but would also relate the the time-lock option you chose.

It would look like this:

5000 STEEM powered up for 4 weeks = $0.03 (100% upvote)
500 STEEM powered up for 40 weeks = $0.03 (100% upvote)
50 STEEM powered up for 400 weeks = $0.03 (100% upvote)

This would allow more equality in vote influence for people. The wealthy would have the advantage of being able to liquidate their Steem Power sooner, but the less economically well off would have the option to invest longer in the Steem blockchain for a more comparable vote strength to the wealthy person.

This would result in the concept that @therealwolf suggested, but it would also solve some of Steem's hierarchical unfairness built into the system that favors the wealthy over the poor/middle class.

24.01.2020 20:14
0

Although I'm new here and barely understand my way around, I'm so happy with the flurry of replies I'm seeing and I know with time we will make this community better for us all.

23.01.2020 06:19
0

Hi ,,,,,. How about an,,,,,,,,,,,,
internal exchange,,,,,,,,,,,,,,so to steem,,,,,,, thanks you so much,,,,,,,,,,,
Great nice 👌,,,,,,,💫💫💫

23.01.2020 06:22
0

I am sure this is somewhere in the comments. Why doesn’t someone make a counter proposal so people against 4 week power downs can vote on that. Only makes sense. Then everyone can vote.

23.01.2020 06:24
0

You're right, smooth has suggested for thecryptodrive to do it, but it is a bit buried in all the comments. Still, I guess we'll see one from him before too long.

23.01.2020 16:37
0

@blocktrades @sepracore thanks for alerting me to that, I don't think I noticed that comment before. Will do so soon.

24.01.2020 05:56
0

Thanks @thecryptodrive. Sometimes the simplest solution is overlooked. 😁

24.01.2020 18:02
0

Stolen account recovery change to 4 weeks same as powering down time that could be a solution!

23.01.2020 06:47
0

I support the 4 week power down proposal and voted for it as well. To me this is a no brainer given the price and marketcap development of Steem in the last 24 month. No serious investor wants to lock their investment for 3 month! One month is already long but much better than what we currently have.

I am very surprised of the comments made by a few of the top witnesses here and wonder if they have any sense of economics?

  • A shorter lockdown period means potentially more large investors are willing to power up rather than dump Steem on exchanges.
  • More locked up Steem will reduce supply and therefore increases the price per Steem.
  • A higher Steem price attracts new users and investors to join Steem and Steemit.
23.01.2020 06:55
0

We at @coingecko would advise against commiting to such changes to the core underlying blockchain. The initial proposal for 13 weeks power down was made with a security feature in mind. The aim is to safeguard token holders which as we've seen are clearly not as security-savvy as the typical users of bitcoin or ether, which has the ecosystem to support 3rd party solutions such as custodial wallets or 2nd layer solutions such as brain keys.

It is a dangerous slope to arbitrarily change such time frames, why not 3 weeks? 2? why not follow EOS's 3 days? These will potentially be the questions the community will raise again once this precedence has been set.

From the original post, we understood that the aim of reducing the power down period is to make it more attractive to investors by reducing their risk exposure.

Even so, we would advise the whole community to reevaluate Steem's USP and take into account if reducing lock-in period actually pushes the needle to convince investors to commit their funds.

To make it truly attractive for investors to lock in their funds for X amount of time for a promise of Y returns, we recommend a comparison against the many Masternodes cryptocurrency already in existence.

Here's a nifty filtered list we've prepapred: https://www.coingecko.com/en?category_id=41&view=market

23.01.2020 09:57
0

Thanks

23.01.2020 12:37
0

Personally, I think it would be cool if you still offered both options. If you take the longer option (current 90 days?) you get the full payout. If you take the shorter option (4 weeks) you have to pay a 10% fee that gets burned to null. That seems like it would be a good trade off between increasing the value of the token and people pumping an dumping.

23.01.2020 12:56
0

OK, but I would change it for 10 weeks:1. It's safer than 4 weeks;

  1. 10 is easier to divide.
23.01.2020 13:46
0

hello steemit and i hope that you dont spam me , i need some support from you . i m using this website since two years and i couldnt increase my account at all . peace to you all from north africa .

23.01.2020 15:10
0

hello steemit and i hope that you dont spam me , i need some support from you . i m using this website since two years and i couldnt increase my account at all . peace to you all from north africa .

23.01.2020 15:13
0

This proposal is lame.

I am more interested in a combination of @therealwolf's dynamic schedule and @joshman's different strata of power up idea.

23.01.2020 15:46
0

23.01.2020 15:50
0

Hi,
I am strongly against the reduction to 4 weeks!
The security would be severely compromised.
I only see disadvantages.
If you want your STEEMs available, store them as tradable tokens.
Thank you!

23.01.2020 16:44
0
23.01.2020 17:06
0

4 Week Power Down is a little bit to short in my thinking. 7 Weeks sounds better. Salve Alucian

23.01.2020 17:49
0

Resteemed by @thethreehugs

23.01.2020 20:29
0

I don't support this changes. It's not bringing anything positive to the community. The 13 weeks powerdown was a features designed not only to protect users, but to encourage long term engagement.

23.01.2020 22:20
0

no.

23.01.2020 23:08
0

Given the fact that there are several voices expressing their disaproval I would suggest not to include this change in the current HF. This is too contentious to include it in the SMT HF (even if the change in the code is trivial).

24.01.2020 06:24
0

Hi to all Steemians. As artist, Steemit believers and economic master degree, I'll vote again the 4 weeks reduction Power Down.

Why?

Because we need long term investors more the pump and dump scalpers. 13 weeks allow to better trust our Steemit Boat, the more you trust the more you stake, that's the power.
And it involve to better set up curation system

Instead we need to better cross-chain with all other currency. This must be a strategic important action cross-chain.

24.01.2020 06:46
0

Please note, there are now two proposals issued to obtain proper community sentiment IN FAVOUR or AGAINST

the 4 Week Power Down change.

PROPOSAL IN FAVOUR:

https://goldvoice.club/steem/@thecryptodrive/hf-proposal-vote-to-reduce-power-down-period-to--weeks

PROPOSALL AGAINST:

https://goldvoice.club/steem/@thecryptodrive/hf-proposal-vote-against-reducing-power-down-period-to-4-weeks

24.01.2020 06:59
0

Una de las características mas importantes de la inversión en Steem es la seguridad que te da el tenerlo en Power Up y que cueste mucho salir del "plazo fijo". Los especuladores tienen otras criptos con las que jugar. Yo no veo bien que el Power Down sea de 4 semanas, estoy cómodo con las 13 actuales.

24.01.2020 07:17
0

Do not do this, the steem price will fall dramatically after the 4 weeks power down...

24.01.2020 09:42
0

Please note, there are now two proposals issued to obtain proper community sentiment IN FAVOUR or AGAINST the 4 Week Power Down change.
PROPOSAL IN FAVOUR:
https://goldvoice.club/steem/@thecryptodrive/hf-proposal-vote-to-reduce-power-down-period-to-4-weeks
PROPOSAL AGAINST:
https://goldvoice.club/steem/@thecryptodrive/hf-proposal-vote-against-reducing-power-down-period-to-4-weeks

I'm temporarily upvoting this comment for visibility...

24.01.2020 16:20
0

First time I see a comment on the trending page.

I know you love 13-weeks pd, but have you considered that 4-week pd may generate more business for blocktrades as an exchange? Give 4-weeks a try. :)

24.01.2020 19:16
0

I don't have that huge a problem with 4 weeks itself, I'd just like more consideration to more comprehensive solution than change of a single parameter before making such a change. In particular, as I've mentioned elsewhere, I'm pretty sure this will result in people losing more money due to phishing attack that obtain their keys. There are many web services that require entry of Steem account keys and this means people get use to using them without enough care.

On balance, as an isolated change made now, I think the disadvantages outweigh the advantates of this change.

I haven't really given much consideration to if the change would bring BlockTrades more business in the short term, but I'm afraid that increased financial losses by Steem holders from hacks would result in bad publicity and would be worse for the long term value of Steem (of which I hold a lot). So I'd prefer to wait for a more considered method of making such a change, before endorsing it.

24.01.2020 21:22
0

These are similar to my feelings as well. I simply don't think the suspected pros outweigh the suspected cons for this change personally.

25.01.2020 02:13
0

I would suggest to determine the length of power down via the Reputation score of each user. For example Rep. 25-50 should have 13 weeks, Rep.51-60 could be 8 weeks and everything above Rep. 61 has the option to power down within 4 weeks.
This would also help to encourage users to ramp up their Rep score and therefore boost activity on the chain.
Someone who has Rep.61 is less likely to be scamed here on Steem because he has proven to be around for some time.
What do you think about this?

25.01.2020 16:50
0

Maybe instead of getting 1/4 of your funds each week, it should be rewritten so you get 100% of funds after 4 weeks. That way people have 1 month to figure out they have been hacked. Isn’t that the maximum amount of time anyway if someone resets the master password? Then the risk of hack is the same as now and you still have a 4 week power down for faster fund recovery.

25.01.2020 17:24
0

Yes, that' s one possible solution, especially if combined with some change to the UIs like steemit/esteem/steempeak to make it more prominent when an account is doing a powerdown, so that owner will be alerted.

25.01.2020 21:43
0

Plz follow me plz help me

26.01.2020 14:27
0

Plz follow me

27.01.2020 14:33
0

Do you not need his help anymore? That’s good!

27.01.2020 18:04
0

Wowww, I didn't notice this was a comment till you mentioned it! I didn't even know this was possible. I thought Steem trending API filtered comments out. Seems like not, or maybe it just hadn't happened before that a comment was more valuable than posts in votes.

25.01.2020 02:37
0

It's actually normal, and probably happens more than you think. I've seen a number of comments that hit trending.

25.01.2020 05:06
0

4 week power down will allow people to more easily uninvest in Steem. Having been the crypto space for four years now, I have witnessed how the mass of people behave. Money now, consequences later.

Steem is already struggling to get people to invest in it. Making it easier to withdraw is not going to encourage people to invest.

Do you want to see the price of Steem plummet to near nothing? Vote for four week power down.

28.01.2020 14:04
0

Of course lower power down time will make Steem a more attractive investment.

Flaw in your argument is that you are assuming lower pd time will cause more selling. Just having that option doesn’t mean more selling. Sellers will sell and holders will hold under any conditions.

This change would only give more flexibility and confidence for those who would want to invest. Those who prefer shorter pd time aren’t necessarily short timers.

28.01.2020 22:32
0

It is experience in the crypto world that has taught me the speculation comes before HODL (investing).

I was here in Steemit from the beginning. I've seen the way it has worked and not. How many Hard Forks are we up to now in an attempt to stop people gaming the system?

Investment will come when there is a clear vision and utility for Steemit. So far @Ned and his company have failed to deliver on that. How long have we been waiting for SMT? After all these years with no major advancements, you expect investors to get onboard? The largest investor was @ned and his company (whale) who last year started dumping their holdings when the crypto market tanked. If they won't continue to invest, who will?

Investors = speculators.

03.02.2020 09:03
0

Steem is not Steemit, and Ned is out of the picture for a while. But I understand what you are saying. If you look at Steem from a startup point of view yes investors evaluate the leadership and the companies before investing. However, Steem is not a company, just like the internet doesn't belong to anybody.

You are wrong. Speculating is short term, investing is long term.

03.02.2020 09:17
0

And where are the investors now? If they don't see the value in it now, a shorter power down period isn't going to bring them back.

This post from @lordbutterfly is an excellent review of how things work around here when there are "investors" in the platform. They don't invest for the community or the platform, they invest for themselves, otherwise it would be a donation.

https://goldvoice.club/steem/@lordbutterfly/2-year-anniversary-post-steem-has-changed

As I said, experience has informed my position.

03.02.2020 09:28
0

Well, it now seems that Steem is owned by somebody, Justin Sun, who colluded with major such as Binance and Poloniex, which used Steem from user's exchange wallets to replace all top witnessess and vote in 20 new block producers / witness to stop a softfork. The softfork would have limited the control that Justin Sun (owner of Tron) would have over the network after buying @Ned's share, which might have still been 20% of the total Steem in the network.

So instead of a 4 week power down, it will now be a three day power down.

I also recommend this article as to what this means.

https://goldvoice.club/steem/@neoxian/the-bank-of-neoxian-final-report

The internet is owned, and control of that is concentrating into fewer and fewer hands with more and more censorship. You may argue there are always around this... if you have the technical know how, but most internet users have a difficult time daily computer usage. These sort of people rely upon the Domain Registrars to navigate their way around the internet. These are all commercial companies, and thus owned.

03.03.2020 01:56
0

One of the reason someone in the actual 'investor class' doesn't jump into steem is because doing so, requires a long vested period (13 weeks). A 4 week powerdown would make steem more attractive, though still concerning.

Do you want to see the price of Steem plummet to near nothing? Vote for four week power down.

4 or 13 weeks, people who want to get out, already can get out. Shorter time wouldn't have much of an effect on the price from that perspective over even a few months timescale. It may cause a short dip initially though.

29.01.2020 22:17
0

!BEER

31.01.2020 14:48
0

View or trade BEER.


Hey @justtryme90, here is a little bit of BEER from @eii for you. Enjoy it!

Learn how to earn FREE BEER each day by staking.

31.01.2020 14:48
0

See my comment / reply to @geekgirl, it also covers your reply.

https://goldvoice.club/steem/@geekgirl/q4u9ae#@leoplaw/q54bty

03.02.2020 09:08
0

im in for this

25.01.2020 04:51
0

Supported.

25.01.2020 10:37
0

There will be never an overwhelmingly consensus on any decision. I like the @blocktrades idea of two proposals to contest with each other. Let the democracy win on the blockchain governance. I think the against proposal is little bit late on the party. However, there is enough time before HF23 to take vote on against proposal. Moreover, both parties can campaign for or against the proposals to solicit votes. Let us see the how governance work on @steem.DAO.

I am campaigning for 4 weeks proosal ;)

25.01.2020 17:19
0

Dear @blocktrades I have been targeted by @buildawhale and he is downvoting my posts to nothing . I have posted here on steemit every day since I joined steemit in July 2016 and invested a lot of money in this and if this sort of thing is allowed to continue then steemit will never recover .
Here is what I wrote him to ask him to stop and then I will show you his response .

To @buildawhale

I do not post anything offensive and do not bother anyone .

Please leave me alone or I will power down and leave Steemit as so many others have done from these " down voting plagues."

As you well know, Steemit is declining in active accounts . As long as this type of down voting continues , Steemit has no chance of ever returning to its former glory .

It is beyond my understanding as to why you want to destroy Steemit .

Who in their right mind would ever put any money in Steemit when someone like you can come along and destroy their investment ?

I have invested money and time in this and the money was before people could down vote someone and not use some of their own voting power to do the down vote . Just look what has happened to the active accounts since the last hard-fork : I hate to say this , but If Steemit does not fix this soon , this site is doomed.

Remember the Golden Rule : " Do unto others as you would have them do unto you " . Would you really want someone with millions of Steem Power to down vote your posts to oblivion ? I think not .

And here was his response

26.01.2020 02:15
0

awsome..:)

27.01.2020 19:02
0

SteemKick is a web-based DApp where the player has to predict the outcome of a Penalty kick. In SteemKick , player can also participate in a multiplayer tournament by staking a certain amount of STEEM token.

NB: SteemKick is a prototype to Penalty Predict, which is the first game on our TRON Blockchain based decentralized gaming hub, Tronstrike Gaming.

27.01.2020 17:58
0

I don’t see why we need to fix something that isn’t broken, I think the risks increase exponentially and the rewards, of any, will be minimal. I think our main focus should be Attracting new users (and users who left, no one talks about that), and showing how steem is more than just steemit. As well as making signup easier if possible, I know we’ve already had many changes on that front

28.01.2020 09:01
0

Please keep the community updated in multiple ways, congrats

29.01.2020 22:12
0

Any plans should account for the discovery of downvote bots with zero steem or steempower that able downvote a post 10 percent of its reward value

24.01.2020 16:22
0

There are downvote bots or whatever they are out there having a downvote party every day of the week. Almost 90% of my posts get 1-3 downvotes regardless of the subject matter, from complete bots for no explanation. It has become a joke - this entire steem platform has become slightly retarded.

30.01.2020 15:35
0

Dear @steemitblog

If you agree with the proposal, it still helps to head over to the Steem.DAO and give it a vote.
The more users who do vote on it, the more it becomes clear that support is truly broad

What about voting AGAINST? Support surely is very broad because @cryptodrive has enormous network of connections. But there is also many users who disagree with that proposal.

MY REPLY:

I've been on STEEM for almost 2 years, which isn't very impressive but I had enough time to learn and understand economy behind this token.

When I think about proposed 4 powering down period - I simply do not see much benefits for that change.

In theory it does make sense. But personally I don't see any way that shortening power down period would actually encourage or discourage investors to get involved in steem. I just don't see it happening.

So I wouldn't expect growing demand - however I would expect possibility of rapid price drop whenever some FUD regarding STEEM would hit the news. People are easily panicking, powering down and selling whatever they can and 13 weeks power down period was one thing that protected us from such a scenario.

Definetly changing into 4 weeks power down period will cause short term extreme selling pressure. All those that are powering down right now (because they want to get rid of steem and are done with this blockchain) - all those users will power down almost instantly. And dump all that liquid steem on the market.

I see so many negatives and positives are quite limited.

Yours, Piotr

24.01.2020 16:35
0

I believe this is a bad idea.

The whole point of powering-up-your-steem is to take it out of circulation and stabilize the economy.

The longer you keep it powered-up, the more effectively it serves its purpose.

It also serves as a type of LOYALTY OATH.

A better "update" would be to give people the option to PERMANENTLY power-up-their-steem!!!

That way we could all stop hearing about the BURNPOSTS.

24.01.2020 17:04
0

I love this idea

24.01.2020 17:22
0

I'm not convinced that it's needed, nor am I convinced that it is a good idea.

Great arguments have been made on both sides, so I won't reiterate them here, except to say that there should remain a choice between the 13-week and 4-week power downs, that any burn-for-immediate-powerdown be opt-in ONLY, and that personally, I consider burning steem for any purpose to be in contravention to the original idea behind steem, not that Steemit Inc. has adhered to those early ideals in any real way.

What I've seen, in my 2+ years on the platform, is that whales get what they want, and screw the rest of us, pretty much every time.

I'm hoping that this time is different, but I'm not holding my breath.

Your track record precedes you.

24.01.2020 23:53
0

Well said, opt in for sure, giving us all much more choice to tailor our investment.

And as for Steemit management and the whales...you said it.

30.01.2020 15:31
0

I personally think that 6 to 7 weeks would be perfect

25.01.2020 12:46
0

I like your compromise, the middle way. 6 weeks max. It allows freedom and retains security. Add to that a 2nd layer of withdraw permission (2FA or email) and you're still safe from hackers.

30.01.2020 15:28
0

Thanks and I definitely agree with the ( 2FA or email )

01.02.2020 09:30
0

This will do to the price of Steem the same thing like the EIP. half it....
If you would ask if the usera would prefr a 1 week powerdown people would vote for that as well.

you are reducing the standing of people committed to this chain after removing the investors passive incone possibilities...

The 500 people who voted for that have a high probability to do just that. Dump...

25.01.2020 13:10
0

Sounds very much like catering to the will of a few. Who will want to be able to power down when the SMT's are released live.

Those funds will be needed to suport the structure of the SMT's

Very clever to make two proposals.
That way be it a yes or no, the votes are gained.

On these type of post the reward should be void

25.01.2020 13:45
0

I am totally for reducing powerdown period.
It is also obvious that reducing the period would increase security issue when an account is compromised. But it is also important that investors have lower barriers.
Moreover, I believe that powerdown period is not a core issue for community development, as well said by @project7.

25.01.2020 13:52
0

Why an arbitrary 4 weeks? Why not 1 week? Why not 24 hours? This inane to me.

25.01.2020 17:24
0

The halving in 2020. The 4 week power down conversation now. Coincidence? Nope.

25.01.2020 18:23
0

Thanks for the post.

25.01.2020 20:37
0

Hi, three days ago I already left this comment:

"Hi, I am strongly against the reduction to 4 weeks!
The security would be severely compromised.
I only see disadvantages.
If you want your STEEMs available, store them as tradable tokens.
Thank you!"

Having seen today that the proposal to vote against the reduction ends after 35 days, I would like to tell you that I find it completely inadmissible that the proposal to vote for the reduction has 3 months more time.

The result will be doubted on this basis.

Please also allow 3 months from now on for the proposal to vote against the reduction.

Thank you!

26.01.2020 12:15
0

AGAINST!!!
It is a very bad idea. Stop this weakening of our stakes!

26.01.2020 17:13
0

Lieber @afrog,

weißt du, dass dann nur die Abstimmung auf dem SPS maßgeblich ist?
Ich habe dort schon gestimmt mittels Proxy.

26.01.2020 21:46
0

Deine Aufmerksamkeit, die Community auf ihre Abstimmungsgelegenheit aufmerksam zu machen, finde ich absolut lobenswert. Ich habe mich um solche neue Sache nicht gekümmert und bin daher weitgehend ahnungslos. Deshalb bedanke ich mich bei dir.

Dass nunmehr vor Hardforks abgestimmt wird, finde ich ja schon mal ein positiveres Signal, als die übliche Dampfwalzenpolitik aus NYC. Gleichwohl handelt es sich bei diesen angeblichen Abstimmungen um eine typische STINC-Finte. Es ist nämlich gar keine Abstimmung, sondern am Schluss entscheidet die Höhe der Votes, was getan wird. Der fettere Stake entscheidet also und nicht etwa eine Stimme alleine. Was tatsächlich demokratisch wäre, aber sicher nicht nach dem Gusto von US-Anlegern auf dem Steem, die nach wie vor alleine darüber bestimmen, wie unsere Blockchain funktioniert.

Wir haben also noch viel Arbeit vor uns, wollen wir diese Willkür tatsächlich überwunden sehen. Erst wenn der Steem in irgend einer Weise vorausschauend berechenbar und stabil geführt wird, ist er reif genug von größeren Organisationen genutzt zu werden.

Solange Turnschuh-Phantasten aus NYC als Erfüllungsgehilfen für undurchschaubare Finanzhaie auf dem Steem agieren, kann ich die Blockchain keiner Organisation aus der Wirtschaft empfehlen. Weil die Politik der Blockchainparameter ganz offensichtlich fremdbestimmt ist und sich jederzeit, uberraschend und diametral gegen die Interessen ihrer Anleger aufstellen könnte. Ohne eine gewisse Verbindlichkeit, sei sie demokratisch, oder rechtlich nachvollziehbarer Natur, ist der Steem ein unberechenbares Labor von Entscheidern, deren Agenda kein Mensch nachvollziehen kann.

English

I find yyour attention to make the community aware of their voting opportunity absolutely commendable. I did not care about such a new thing and am therefore largely unaware of it. Therefore I thank you.
The fact that the vote will now take place before Hardforks, I find a more positive signal than the usual steamroller politics from NYC. Nevertheless, these alleged votes are a typical STINC-fine. It is not a vote at all, but in the end the amount of votes decides what is done. So the fatter Stake decides and not one vote alone. Which would actually be democratic, but certainly not to the liking of US investors on the steem, who still decide alone how our block chain works.
So we still have a lot of work to do if we really want to see this arbitrariness overcome. Only when the Steem is in some way predictable and stable, it is mature enough to be used by larger organizations.
As long as sneaker phantoms from NYC act on the steem as vicarious agents for inscrutable financial sharks, I cannot recommend the Blockchain to any organization from the economy. Because the policy of the block chain parameters is obviously externally determined and could at any time, surprisingly and diametrically opposed to the interests of their investors. Without a certain amount of commitment, be it democratic or legally comprehensible, the steem is an unpredictable laboratory of decision makers whose agenda no one can understand.

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

26.01.2020 22:47
0

Shorter Power Down Period? You want to keep your cake and eat it too.

Totally against it. Not only for security reasons, but I think it's bad for the stability of the blockchain.

26.01.2020 17:59
0

Then the blockchain was poorly coded originally.

30.01.2020 15:22
0

@steemitblog, this is a great proposal! Definitely, a shortening of the powerdown process is a step into the right direction.

I've been an economist for over 20 years and I think that shortening of the powerdown process will impact positively the STEEM ecosystem. Why? ... The explanation is very simple: freedom, flexibility, etc. We have to be able to operate with our funds as freely as possible. I am not interested in buying Steem and powering up if I have to wait 13 weeks for a powerdown. It simply makes my investment locked-in and hence vulnerable to price risk.

So, the answer is very simple: the easier the process to have control over my money, the more attractive Steem ecosystem is. So, simply initiate the reduction of the time of the powerdown process from 13 weeks to 4 weeks. This is my point of view.

26.01.2020 18:12
0

It seems so obvious to me too and I have zero economics education, other than self-taught crypto.

30.01.2020 15:21
0

I find @jaki01 proposal interesting if you really wanted to change something about the Power Down
at least allows users to decide for themselves whether the Power Down should last 4 or 13 weeks
VgA

26.01.2020 18:38
0

Please leave it as it is. I don't think it will do the steem any good to cut down on time. If someone wants to trade, they don't have to convert their steem into steem power.

26.01.2020 22:21
0

I do have to convert 50/50. We all have to convert at least half, or is there another option besides the two I have seen?

30.01.2020 15:18
0

How about an 8 week compromise? lol

27.01.2020 02:43
0

In my view, there is no hurry to reduce PD to 4 weeks, it would be better to combine it with 2FA in a future HF.

I think there are much more important things right now. For example, take a look at the accounts mainly benefit from the Rewardpool and counteract abuse. Improve the conditions for small accounts with a reward curve that reduces high rewards - the opposite of the HF22 curve.

27.01.2020 04:10
0

YES, FOR FUCKS SAKE THAT WAS WHAT WE WANTED BACK IN 2016 BEFORE EVERYONE LEFT! - 48 HOUR POWER DOWN AND NO FLAGGING - BUT NO... YOU CLOWNS HAD TO SCREW THE PLATFORM OVER INSTEAD. ENJOY YOUR $94.84.

27.01.2020 04:46
0

It seems so obvious to me too, that 13 week powerdown is ridiculous and will chase away intelligent investors.

30.01.2020 15:15
0

Thanks for the post.

27.01.2020 07:02
0

I like having myS TEEM locked up longer because it feels safer.
If I get hacked I may not even notice in 4 weeks, but I surely would in13 weeks!! Also, since I have multiple accounts, that would mean I'd have to check on them all every 4 weeks???,I don't think so!!!

The other issue will include the increased supply hitting the exchanges. I'm sure there would be much more selling!! This would probably cut the price of steem by 1/3rd, back down to 10 cents for a while until the markets digested the new supply rates!!

27.01.2020 07:12
0

When speaking to anyone about potential investment in the platform having to lock your power up for 13 weeks is a big negative, hinders ability to respond to the market and steers them away from our platform as an investment.

Currently I’d say that those who are invested are the believers in our future and we should allow those people to do as they choose with their hard earned stake supporting their efforts and agendas.

27.01.2020 11:55
0

Nice good and good post

27.01.2020 15:27
0

I'm against a reduction. Everything should stay the way it is. I think it's a big account initiative to get Steem out faster. Yours Querdenker

28.01.2020 00:10
0

Personally I think just changing it to 4 weeks from 13 is too simple of a solution.

28.01.2020 04:18
0

Would you go for the middle way of 8 week power down? With no 5% burn or any burn option which is a loophole for hackers?

Or what would make more sense to you?

30.01.2020 15:43
0

@blocktrades options could be as follow:

  • make it REP based, which means higher rep accounts gets lower PD time and lower rep will still have higher PD time. This will stimulate lower rep account to be more active and increase their rep. The best thing about it is that lower rep users are there since less time than high rep users and are more vulnerable for hacks and phishing atempts thus maintaining a higher PD would protect them more compared to high rep accounts who have been there since a while and are less vulnerable.
  • Create a notifying messaging system, through email or through a notification on the different apps, to let users confirm through the click of a link in their inbox the PD or even let user confirm the PD through a onetime key passcode through a mobile message making it very very much harder for hackers to access sms on a device.
28.01.2020 11:58
0

I have read with great interest this post and some very well written and impassioned arguments on both sides of this issue, as both those calling for protection and those calling for freedom wrote eloquently and well reasoned comments. I thought the collective knowledge expressed in the thread of comments was impressive and the list of concerns including wallet security and impact on governance were well discussed and showed differing opinions and a spectrum of choices. I must admit that at times I chuckled as I saw concerns for freedom, concerns for protection, concerns for freedom from protection and also calls for protection from freedom. All passionate and well reasoned but the spectrum was a bit humorous.

But as I finished reading for what seemed like an hour, I was struck by this thought. Steemit, the Steem blockchain and the spirit of cryptocurrency isn’t about choosing either one choice or another, it’s about having a choice, and perhaps that’s what we should do, give people a choice.

I have been here two years and I am still learning about the platform and it’s various characteristics. The platform has a learning curve and depending on ones previous cryptocurrency knowledge and level of activity here it takes a variable amount of time to learn how to operate in a secure manner.

I think we should consider two things : first offering a choice to people how much protection they want from the Power Down feature in terms of how many weeks they want to choose to power down their account. Second I think we should discus the impact this could have on governance of the blockchain, witness votes, etc. Currently the long power down period means you need to be committed to tying up your funds for at least 13 weeks, which some feel protects the blockchain from bad actors.

One example cited was whales or exchanges from powering up, influencing governance rule changes which result in them obtaining a large cut of the reward pool and then powering down dumping those gains on the market driving down the price with the dual effect of both taking the majority of the rewards and driving down the value of the remaining rewards.

I don’t know how plausible that occurrence is, and I certainly don’t want this to scare us into inaction, but I desire the opposite.

Most importantly, I think it’s a valuable discussion to utilize all the collective brainpower here to propose changes to improve freedom, choice, attract more people to our platform and our blockchain, as well as review the effects on governance. Let us move forward as a group in the spirit of choice and options, not simply either this choice or that choice, so we can chose certain things based on our knowledge and comfort level, protect the new members of our community, liberate the older members, encourage participation by others outside our current membership, but protect our project.

We are an evolving entity, we will make desirable and undesirable changes whose effects will often only be discovered retrospectively. So a bit of caution and deliberation may be wise.

28.01.2020 20:59
0

How to vote against this SPS?

28.01.2020 23:14
0

Found. Vote the proposal against the proposal https://beta.steemconnect.com/sign/update-proposal-votes?proposal_ids=%5B71%5D&approve=true

We should definitely be able to vote for or against a SPS, like Dash permits it.

28.01.2020 23:28
0

I would vote to take the risk. Might as well shake things up. What is happening now is nothing for value of steem, so doing nothing is a path disaster for value.

30.01.2020 06:44
0

I'm blown away by the fact that there was once initially a 100 odd week power down! You poor sods. Who in their right mind wants to take two years to unstake and get their ow hard-earned money? NO wonder it got ditched as a bad idea, fit to benefit perhaps the whales, I don't know.

Now a 13 week power down is already a long time - 3 months. WTF do we do when the price is peaking and we want to sell. Obviously we can't, we have to wait and get what whatever comes to us as the price fluctuates. We are at the total mercy of the price and the system. It sucks. But it has security benefits, lest a hacker access our wallet, so it's tolerable.

Now a 4 week power down sounds much better. DO IT!

It is prcisely because of this 13 week block in my flow that no longer power up all my STEEM, only the 50% I'm obliged to. I will stay liquid as much as possible so that I AM IN CONTROL of MY FUNDS. 4 week is better.

I am not as experienced, so this is not an educated answer, just my personal opinion. I'm here for profit - why else would I be here? Isn't that why we are all here, writing and curating - for the MONEY, not for some sentimental attachment to some old blockchain project that we have married. Sure I love to write and blog and communicate like all compulsive communicators (humans) but I wouldn't bother being here if it weren't for the MONEY. So give me more control of my wallet, but keep some security, like the 4 week power down.

30.01.2020 15:01
0

If you own a PC or mobile phone and have an internet connection you can be making $700+ monthly.

https://goldvoice.club/steem/@davidsking/alid

30.01.2020 17:26
0

COMPLAINTS FILED AGAINST STEEMIT

Unfortunately because of a few scumbags like the following members, Steemit's days as a viable forum are quickly coming to an end, because it has essentially turned into nothing more than a cesspool of fraud and corruption, controlled by childish members, porn promoters, and other such low-life human beings.

@steemcleaners - 82.0

@themarkymark (AKA @buildawhale) - 77.6

@bullionstackers - 71.9

@buildawhale (AKA @themarkymark) - 74.9

@quarantine (AKA @the-reef / AKA @block-power) - 61.2

@bookguy - 61.0

@mack-bot - 58.8

@the-reef (AKA @block-power / AKA @quarantine) - 54.9

@block-power (AKA @the-reef / AKA @quarantine) - 25.0

@blockcreate - 25.0

@steemcleaner - 1.07

and others.

The Facts: If any of the above members do not like one of more of your posts, comments or replies for any reason, they will not only down-vote that post or comment, but will then go back and down-vote many, if not all of your previous posts and comments (plus any you post in the future), thus reducing your reputation rating to near nothing. A scumbag is a scumbag, but the real problem lies with the idiots who run and control Steemit. Only a bunch of total morons would ever set up a voting system as it now is designed. The main problem is that a higher reputation member can always down-vote a lower-reputation member, which will have a significant impact on the lower-reputation member's rating. The reverse however does not hold. A lower-reputation member can indeed down-vote a higher-reputation member, but unlike the reverse, the lower-reputation member's down-vote has no impact on the reputation of the high-reputation member. It's like it never happened.

In any event, whoever devised such a system, unfortunately has more than a few marbles missing. But quite frankly, who cares? I am now in the process of powering down my steem (10 weeks to go) so that I can exit this cesspool as so many thousands have done before me. So if the Steemit's management really wanted to create a cesspool of such scumbags, a real haven for porn lovers and other such low-lifes, congratulations! They accomplished that! Steemit will not survive much longer! Of that fact, I am quite certain!

To all the scumbags here on Steemit: Go ahead, and bring on the down-votes, and perhaps it may help you feel good for a while, but in the long run, it will not fill your otherwise pathetic empty lives.

To all other Steemit Members: I'm sure you have come to realize some of these things, as well as the fact that steem payouts are nowhere remotely close to what they are claimed to be. Only those at the very top of the pyramid get the bulk of the payouts, while the rest of us (the vast majority of us), get virtually nothing.

Please also note that you would be wise to withdraw all your steem from Steemit asap. Official complaints have been filed with the following Government Organizations seeking the shutdown of Steemit:

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
https://www.ftccomplaintassistant.gov/?utm_source=takeaction#crnt&panel1-1

The Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) https://www.ic3.gov/default.aspx

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/cyber

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
https://www.sec.gov/divisions/enforce/claims.htm

Meanwhile, the best thing you can do to help the Steemit platform, and give it a chance of survival, and if you have a higher-reputation, is to down-vote the above members so if not to get them off of Steemit, at least take away their abusive down-voting power.

03.02.2020 21:54
0

Why make thing complicated for powerdown? Why not making a new choice to powerdown like 1 week, 2 weeks, 3 weeks, 4 weeks and so on by owner will to powerdown if you dont want the hackers get their money.that was their money their responsible to take care good their account. Steemit should be not act like a bank and hold peoples money to long as time is money for some peoples.

04.02.2020 01:09
0

thanks for help us

14.02.2020 09:22
0