HF Proposal: Vote AGAINST Reducing Power Down Period to 4 Weeks


_pixabay.com image_

Please note there are now two proposals issued to enable the community to either vote IN FAVOUR or AGAINST the idea of a 4 week Power Down period reduction.

Vote this proposal if you are "AGAINST" reducing the Power Down period to 4 weeks.

Voting platforms:


If you are "IN FAVOUR" of the 4 week Power Down change then visit the ORIGINAL PROPOSAL

Be sure to read discussions on both proposal posts in order to make an informed decision and feel free to contribute towards the discussion.

Check the latest Steemitblog post for additionnal discussion.

Excerpt from Original proposal

This is a consensus proposal to allow witnesses and stakeholders to vote on this change being implemented in the next HF, thereby recording their approval on-chain.

The proposed change is to reduce the current 13-week power down schedule to 4 weeks. The reason for selecting 4 weeks was to still provide some lockup protection within the 30-day account recovery period.

There was talk about having different power down schedules for earned vs invested SP but that would be a much more complex code change and additional cognitive load for the user, therefore this proposal is simply for a reduction to 4 weeks and nothing else.

The changes will likely involve code to first halt all current power downs in progress and change the parameter from 13 to 4 weeks.

The premise behind this change is to reduce the barrier to entry for investment into Steem and PoB SMT's, currently it is daunting for investors to lock-up their capital for 13 weeks. While 4 weeks is still high compared to other chains like EOS, it is a positive incremental iteration in the right direction, with low risk of market sell-off. It can be further reduced in a future hardfork if proven to not have adverse market effects.

Implementation: This is likely a small code change that can be done by Steemit Inc., community developers are of course entitled to submit PR's to the public repo for these changes or submit a proposal to be remunerated for the same.

There was also a discussion about adding an instant power down by burning 5-10% of the stake, that may be more expensive to code and perhaps should not be considered for this HF, but if still desired should be voted on via a separate proposal. (EDIT: This has been found to be very dangerous, a hacked account could be instantly drained via this burn mechanism and therefor circumvents any lockup period safety benefits.)

Please can all top 20 witnesses who support this change kindly vote FOR or AGAINST. Backup witnesses, active stakeholders and community members are invited to vote as well.

Proposal Recipient Disclaimer: The proposal recipient will be @steem.dao, funds will be returned to the SPS pool, the purpose of the proposal is to achieve voting consensus either IN FAVOUR or AGAINST the 4 week powerdown change.

Beneficiary Disclaimer: This is a 100% 🔥Burnpost🔥!

Comments 66

This post has been resteemed by @witnessnews.

Follow @witnessnews to keep up with active witness updates.

24.01.2020 06:51

I like, especialy the instant power down with burn. That would make things attractive. But to protect users I would think best the instant to not be so instant... and kind of take a few hours
Eit be exponential wit more and be logaritmic with a complex process to be sureng down.

I would like accounts to be able to set either one (4 week) or the usual 13 weeks. This would allow accouts to suit different purpouses.er is really powering down.

24.01.2020 09:36

Maybe instant power down could involve a burn and active authentication by some other multisig account you specify.

24.01.2020 18:42

Thats a good example.

25.01.2020 07:58

I don't want any of my STEEM burnt up thank you!!!!

27.01.2020 07:24

I like your suggestion @forykw

25.01.2020 10:03

@therealwolf was talking about higher rewards set to longer stakes, which I think is an awesome addition to this concept.

25.01.2020 18:48

I also like that idea. Alighed with longer rewards I would also think nice if locked stakes exist. To allow for better deals and rewards along with programed safety.

26.01.2020 01:59

I'm relatively new here so forgive the naive tone of this question, just because it is simple I don't mean it flippantly, I really would like to know if anyone knows real data.

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

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

24.01.2020 10:38

It's not designed with the safety of the user in mind. It's designed for the strength and stability of the Steem economy. Among many things, it protects against actions such as pump and dump and other similar fraudulent strategies. If you want details on the specific thoughts that went into this decision, check out the Steem Whitepaper, specifically the Steem Power section.

The essence is captured in the first three paragraphs, so I will quote them below:

Start up companies require long-term capital commitment. Those who invest their money in a startup expect to wait years before they can sell their shares and realize their profits. Without long-term commitment, a startup seeking to raise additional capital through the sale of additional shares would be competing with existing shareholders looking to exit. Savvy investors want their capital contributions to grow the company, but growth cannot happen if the new capital is given away to those looking to exit.

There is significant value to having long-term commitment because it enables communities to make long-term plans. Long term commitment of stakeholders also causes them to vote for long-term growth rather than short-term pumps.

In the cryptocurrency space, speculators jump from cryptocurrency to cryptocurrency based mostly on which one is expected to have short-term growth. Steem wants to build a community that is mostly owned and entirely controlled by those with a long-term perspective.

24.01.2020 15:18

My gut feeling tell me this change will be approved.

24.01.2020 11:20

Hi @chesatochi
That would mean sudden STEEM price crash. imagine all those people powering down to sell - if they would get all that liquid steem and dump it on the market. I would expect huge selling pressure, pushing STEEM to all time lows :/

Maybe this proposal make some sense, but consequences can be painful.


25.01.2020 10:07

Back in 2016 we changed the power down time from 2 years to 13 weeks. There were MANY early miners and early high earning authors powering down. It didn't crash the market one bit. In fact as I recall even before the first 13 weeks were up, the market stabilized and started to recover.

The thing is, shortening the power down period does let people power down and sell quickly, but it also removes the overhang of future selling for an extended period. The later can make buying in more attractive.

26.01.2020 08:07

It would get rid of the weak hands faster!!

27.01.2020 07:23

The idea to shorten the trip period is wonderful - I hope that in the future we will reduce it to at least 1 week!
The idea of ​​an instant exit with 5% burning is like a robbery - or get out of prison for a bribe (this should not be realized under any circumstances)
I am sure that a decrease to 4 weeks will not bring negative consequences / @aggroed suggested waiting 6-10 months with changes (this is most likely correct), but I am afraid that then there will be no suitable time for changes. Changes must be made while the market is stable - during strong volatility, I would not lower the shutdown threshold. Now is a very opportune moment.

24.01.2020 12:52

Hi @russia-btc

Reduce it to 1 week? So why would we need powering up at all?

Im very much against this idea. Especially now. Steem price is very low and we want to 'kill it'? Imagine if all people powering down now, would have all their liquid steem ready to be sold right away. That would absolutely crash the price.

Yours, piotr

25.01.2020 10:05

Hey. The SP should be able to shut down immediately if it is turned on for at least 13 weeks. this is enough to get acquainted with the platform. no one will sell now - the price is very low.
If you are a beginner and have ended 13 weeks, you can exit at any time, or you can extend the blocking period and the longer your blocking period, the more privileges you have on the platform - or you are ready for an instant exit but lose many privileges - how do you like this idea?

25.01.2020 11:18

It's me again @russia-btc

I've just realized that I never actually thanked you for your comment. Big thx.

I would need to ask you for little favour. Recently I've decided to join small contest called "Community of the week" and I desribed our project.hope hive/community. Would you mind helping me out and RESTEEM this post - just to get some extra exposure? Your valuable comment would be also appreciated.

Link to my post: on steemit or on steempeak

Thanks :)
Yours, Piotr

04.03.2020 10:17

I am unclear; what "against"4-week PD means. As far as I am concerned there is no unique solution or consensus against. To me this is confusing. People already expressed their opinion on the comments :


Why we need another proposal?

Again, to be clear I support the current system of 13-week PD as is, no change. Why are we wasting development energy on this. Let us work on many other things that we need to fix, like the front end, stability, on-boarding etc.

24.01.2020 14:37

Because there is already a “FOR” proposal where stakeholders expressed how they feel about it.

Now “Against” proposal to show the comparison between the two, and to get a better picture where stakeholders stand.

24.01.2020 16:05

Understood! What is unclear is why the choice is binary?

Also the result of the outcome could be questionable as one proposal is older than other and people feel the burnut. I do, as I geet the feeling of lot of “pushing agenda”.

24.01.2020 18:38

The FOR proposal doesn’t reflect true participation because those who are against would not have voted in which case there is no way of knowing if they were neutral or against or simply not engaged. I was asked to put this proposal together to capture more data.

24.01.2020 18:46

@joshman this covers your question, also for this HF we don’t have the luxury of complex solutions other than a simple number tweak from 13 to 4, to reduce technical overhead. So our only options until another HF maybe a year away is either 13 or 4.

24.01.2020 18:48

So I'll for for not throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks. Thanks.

24.01.2020 19:21

Josh, I am glad you ask this question. This discussion is so convoluted that I can't wrap my head around it. But I will try and ask the right questions again. I appreciated there are lot of educated people here with substantial knowledge of not only blockchain, but general knowledge about how capital markets function. So I am confused out of respect, and I am not mocking.

  1. I am hearing the word "speculation" a lot. I am assuming people are using the word in a sense of financial terminology. As far as I know it is defined as such: investment in stocks, property, or other ventures in the hope of gain but with the risk of loss
    I am very confused, do we want speculators in steem or we do not? I do not know how many of you actually speculate or did any kind of speculation in their professional life, but I do speculation for a living, and have done it all my life. To me it makes no difference what so ever, whether steem has a 4 week PD or a 13 week PD. Makes absolutely no difference at all.
  2. Also I don't know if you are familiar with Venture Capital lock down period, Company stock purchase lock down period, Employee stock option lock down period, or standard IPO lock down period. All these things I mentioned are considered standard financial instruments, and they all have 3 months to 1+ year lock down on cumulative capital measured in hundreds of million USD to several billion USD. Just for reference Steem's market cap in under 60 million USD. What is hell are we talking about here?! That is less than the daily trading volume at Goldman Sachs product desk for Sigma X(which is 69 million USD average, Dec 2019 data). Seriously why this is even a discussion topic?


24.01.2020 19:54

To me it makes no difference what so ever, whether steem has a 4 week PD or a 13 week PD. Makes absolutely no difference at all.

You're not here to provide market liquidity, and I would argue that most people that bother to power up for any time frame are not either. They are expecting that there will be a meaningful change in sell side liquidity should the lock down period decrease. While I'm certain it may add something to the liquidity, I don't think it will be meaningful.

What about not burning steem and actually voting authors to add liquidity? I'm not sure if the act of burning supply is compatible with trying to increase liquidity. I suspect some people here are trying to have their cake and eat it to.

24.01.2020 20:14

Agree on your first point. They expect liquidity will increase but I don’t think it will be significant either.

Not sure on the second. Recently you tried to find posts to push on trending.... but I say you were only marginally successful? ;) it’s mostly because they don’t exist

24.01.2020 20:47

I agree whole heartedly that the liquidity of exceptional posts (for lack of a better term) has decreased to a slow trickle. But that is on us for not recognizing or rewarding them when they have come in the past (mostly for selfish reward curve reasons). On top of that, the only way to raise a bar, is to set one in the first place. To have something to point to in order to show potential authors, if you can do better than this, you will displace this. That means rewarding the best the platform has to offer at a given time (within reason), not waiting for unicorns trying to win the lottery. When a showcase exists, I now have the ability to actually recruit authors who are able to do a better job to get themselves into the showcase. When authors are consistently outcompeted by 'token preservation posts', it's demoralizing. While I have no problem with technical solutions, it can't come at the cost of solutions that drive value in terms of IP on the platform.

24.01.2020 21:06

Because they(Steemit) believe this change to 4-week power down by itself is simple enough to be implemented in the next SMTs hardfork. Anything more will require its own discussion, development, and hardfork.

Original proposal received a lot of support, but now many expressing opposing views. That’s why I think they want to know if this is really what majority stakeholders/community want.

This is my understanding.

24.01.2020 18:55

Alright... Alright!!

I will vote! Geez! :) You people!

No body voted for that thing yet! Great Iwill be the first too vote!

24.01.2020 19:09

No, don’t. Vote for FOR, not AGAINST. :)

Why would you want your funds hold hostage for 13 weeks. I think 4 week pd is better.

24.01.2020 19:13

Because I want to burn my money :)

24.01.2020 19:19

There are votes but they don't show up until the proposal goes live, which I think was set for January 25. Check back in several hours.

24.01.2020 19:38

Great minds...

24.01.2020 19:23

What is unclear is why the choice is binary?

The choice is binary at this time because the developers have said they are considering the change to 4 weeks it is a simple paramater change. None of the other ideas discussed are in that category.

They can be discussed further and potentially polled later.

Also the result of the outcome could be questionable as one proposal is older than other and ...

You are right, it isn't 100% reliable. It is also non-binding. People (developers, witnesses, and stakeholders) will have to use some judgment in interpreting the results.

24.01.2020 19:37

They don´t understand DAOs, the decision was already made! Those people uncomfortable with 13 Weeks already exited and have no Power left to back their claim. It is a pseudo decision --> biased towards people comfortable with holding. If those proposals are designed to please bag holders...fine. If we really want to leverage the "wisdom of the crowd" (if there is any), we should read some articles by Buterin, Merkle and other folks about what a DAO actually is. The inner German Wall was designed to hold people in the country but at the same time was the biggest incentive for people to leave at every opportunity. On the other hand VC funds have lock-ups of 10 years - industry standard...There is a point in having long investor lockups... However, I wish the whales and the community the best luck to make the right decision. Probably not everything should be polled, and if there is a poll it should be without those statistical-text-book flaws. A poll like this should not be accepted because it is potentially harmfull.

27.01.2020 08:05

I am unclear; what "against"4-week PD means

Against means no change to the power down time (13 weeks)

to be clear I support the current system of 13-week PD as is, no change

Then you should vote for the AGAINST proposal

24.01.2020 19:34

Ah why not split it from twelve and 4 to like 7 or 8. Compromise people. We are not like congress

25.01.2020 15:36

I believe this is a bad idea (4 week power-down).

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 (13 weeks seems reasonable).

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 17:17

it seem that we're on the same page @logiczombie

imagine all those people powering down to sell - if they would get all that liquid steem and dump it on the market. I would expect huge selling pressure, pushing STEEM to all time lows :/

Maybe this proposal make some sense, but consequences can be painful.


25.01.2020 10:07

People wanting to power down will do so anyways, whether 4 weeks or 13 weeks. I don't think people will go rushing to the exists and tank the price if they drop it to 4 weeks, but I am also against changing it for the sake of changing it.

25.01.2020 23:56

It's looking pretty bleak at the moment,


27.01.2020 19:44

I am voting for this proposal not because I am against reducing the powerdown period to 4 weeks but because I am against including it in the SMT hardfork. This needs further discussion to build real consensus and it also requires to view other alternatives such as having multiple options for vesting e.g. longer divesting periods for witness voting, voting on proposals etc.

Also there is an option on the table to use the savings account to participate in the reward allocation but not on the consensus voting.

24.01.2020 17:18

Any idea when SMT hardfork will take place @onthewayout?

25.01.2020 10:02

We've been hearing about SMT's for a really long time now... I hope to one day witness them.

25.01.2020 18:43

No clue, several people are doing tests and uncovering bugs. I am guessing it would be ready in 1 or 2 months maybe.

25.01.2020 20:42

Hi again @onthewayout

Can I ask you for little favour? I joined contest called "Community of the week" with project I manage and I would be grateful if you could RESTEEM it and help me get some exposure and drop some encouraging comment :)

Link to my post: on steemit or on steempeak

Thanks :)
Yours, Piotr

04.03.2020 10:16

Why are we voting like this is a binary choice when there are possible solutions that cover both sides of the argument?

24.01.2020 18:30

I voted for your previous post:

But now you're saying the opposite.
What caused this?

24.01.2020 18:52

View or trade BEER.

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

Learn how to earn FREE BEER each day by staking.

24.01.2020 18:52

Hi @thecryptodrive!

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

In our last Algorithmic Curation Round, consisting of 81 contributions, your post is ranked at #4.

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

Feel free to join our @steem-ua Discord server

24.01.2020 21:04

This is going to increase the amount of are in circulation, causing the poor price of steem to become shitcoin

25.01.2020 09:59

Dear @thecryptodrive

I value your work on Steem a lot and it's difficult for me to be against your proposal. However i really don't see much benefits and at the same time I'm worried about negative impact of this change.

Perhaps sometime in the future this proposal would make more sense. However right now it would speed up powering down of all those, who are currently moving away from steem blockchain. Speeding up their power downs would end up with tons of steem being rapidly sold and bringing price again to all time lows.

I really don't think it's a right time for such a move. Perhaps if steem price would recover partly. But I don't see a reason to do it now.

Yours, Piotr

25.01.2020 10:02

Sure that is no problem, this is a democracy so vote for whichever one is right for you. I am very pleased however that we have established a standard for democratic voting using the Steem dao. It is a great platform for the community to join together and discuss economic and development improvement ideas.

25.01.2020 19:39

25.01.2020 15:45

I am against this change and FOR opening discussions and coming up with the best solution to this complicated issue.

25.01.2020 18:52

it is much needed

26.01.2020 05:58

Shouldn't this be decided on dPoll before being put into a proposal? It feels like this is a bit of an abuse of the proposal system.

26.01.2020 10:30

Hey, cheers for putting this option of the table, I appreciate how balanced it is of you, given that I assume you're actually for reducing the PD proposal!

Just wanted to say cheers anyway!

26.01.2020 15:17

When Steem was first started a power down took six months to complete. Why so long? Those who have Steem power have control over aspects of the platform. Moving to 13-weeks meant that those with weak hands (hot money) would come in and get out quickly.

Maybe decisions are made for short term value to Steem at the expense of longer term value. Some large investors in Steem were upset with that change.

Now it is going from thirteen to four. I would have liked to see a stable Steem dollar but I guess it is the wrong block chain for that.

27.01.2020 01:35

Thanks for the post.

28.01.2020 03:18

There was no different at all if they change it to 4 week or 13 week powerdown.. Still steem market are dropping down. Whatever you say is not worth at all. See what happen when whales dumping this steem. Whatever change has being made still bring no effect at all. About hacker.. It still the same for me. What place is safe from hacker? So i dont care at all if it 4 or 13 week pd. Just make it fast. Too much trashtalk is not good either.

05.02.2020 01:32

You are currently leasing me sp via dlease at 11% apr
I use it to fund my token which returning 20%apr fixed
Feel free to drop me message or dm me on discord

14.02.2020 10:01