Steemit Power Down Proposal

2개월 전

PD Proposal.jpg

Hello Steemians, as of now, the proposal to lower the power down period to 4 weeks has 20 million Steem Power backing it, while the proposal not to lower the power down period has around 17 million Steem Power behind it.

Go Steem.DAO!

Before we get into the nitty gritty let’s take a moment to appreciate this cool use for the Steem.DAO. We think one of the best indicators of good design is when a tool doesn’t just serve the intended purpose well, but also serves unforeseen use cases. That’s also why we want to thank @thecryptodrive yet again for his innovative use of the Steem.DAO.

What these proposals demonstrate is that while there is clearly a lot of interest in modifying the power down aspect of Steem, there is no clear consensus on the nature of that change or the urgency, which is not say that this is a topic which should be ignored.

Alternative Approach

That’s why in today’s post we’d like to propose an alternative approach to this problem which we believe would satisfy those who support the proposed changes, while providing a more comprehensive, customizable, and long-term solution to the problem.

What we propose is giving account holders the ability to determine for themselves how long they would like to time lock their funds. The longer the user chooses to lock their funds, the more funds they get to claim from the token inflation which is allocated to Steem Power holders. While this might sound like an escalation from the relatively simple proposed change, we believe it is a superior and worthwhile solution.

Competing Goals

Community members will never agree on what the power down time should be because there are two competing design goals within it. Those that want a shorter power down time want to lower the barrier to entry to Steem, and those that want a longer power down time want to incentivize long term commitment to the ecosystem. Addressing both of these issues would significantly improve Steem’s ability to grow, but the current system cannot satisfy both requirements. Therefore a new system is required.

A Simple Proposal

The system we propose would enable the user to determine for themselves exactly how long they are willing to lock up their STEEM, and would reward them in direct proportion to that length of time. The longer the user chooses to lock up their Steem, the larger the percentage of the inflation they get.

Not a Design Proposal

This is not a comprehensive design proposal, and many questions still need to be answered. What should the minimum possible time lock be? The current economics of Voting Mana dictate that the shortest possible Steem Power time lock would be 5 days.

That means that a user who chooses this option could lose all of their stake in 5 days if hacked. Is that an acceptable risk? This also does not address what the bonus incentivize should be for those who time lock for longer periods of time or whether there should be a maximum time lock.

Post SMT Hardfork

While we believe this would be a superior change, it is sufficiently complex that in order to incorporate it into the SMT hardfork we would have to delay that project. For that reason, we would recommend waiting until after the SMT hardfork to begin work on this change.

Let us know in the comment section below what you think of our proposal!

The Steemit Team

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
STEEMKR.COM IS SPONSORED BY
ADVERTISEMENT
Sort Order:  trending

The Interest from the Steem inflation is so small it offers no incentive to lock your Steem up for longer than the minimum - surely if we allow people to choose their own lock in time, everyone's just going to go for the minimum period?

·

surely if we allow people to choose their own lock in time, everyone's just going to go for the minimum period?

No. It all depends on the right incentives. Would you be on Steem if you'd earn nothing? Most likely not.

Same goes for powering up. If there are no incentives, then people will go for the minimum required period, but given enough incentives, this is easily changed.

·
·

This is going to become a debate about how to weight the incentives for what period of lock-in isn't it?!?

Inevitable I guess!

·

That's not entirely true...

If let's say the minimum period were 5 days and for locking up SP for that minimum you receive no interest, then there's more interest to share for the rest of users.

If for 4 weeks it's, let's say 0.5%, then again it's less than currently 2% APR, so more for those who stake longer.

This way we can get to something like 5%? for locking stake to 6 months - 1 year?

These are not by all means exact calculations, nor can we have that at this stage.

By all probabilities this may be a dynamic interest rate, which will fluctuate based on how many people choose different staking plans. That's if we want to keep interest at 10% from total inflation, and I don't think that's under discussion.

·
·

5% APR, in crypto volatile world, on a inflationary coin... It's nothing. This proposal makes no sense to me.

Instead please allow users to power down quicker for a price of burning part of the tokens - I think this was already proposed by many users.

·
·
·

This is one of the dumbest ideas ive heard and coming from steemit.inc makes me feel that they really lack vision or the capacity to strategically think as to the effects of the change.
This literally does nothing.

·
·
·

Instant power down with burn is not mutually exclusive with progressive power up period. You can make the burn percentage fee scale with the stake duration. For example, 1 week stake has 1% burn fee, 2 week stake has 2% burn fee, etc. This punishes people that fails their long term commitment while still giving them option to exit instantly. The security aspect is discussion for another day though.

·
·
·
·

I voted for 4 weeks to disconnect - I do not change my opinion.
I'm interested in - how many accounts voted for 4 weeks and how many to leave as is?
It is very important
anigif_original6891139785117031.gif

·
·
·
·
·

Does it really matter? It is a stake based procedure anyways...Stake does the talking...

PS. I know what you mean...

·
·
·
·
·
·

People do have a little influence, a tiny bit. Some whales care.

·
·
·
·
·
·

Perhaps its time we started to question the status quo in that regard and have some meaningful discussions about it?
Maybe there are some areas such as witness selection, and proposals for structural change, that would be far more beneficial for the growth of the platform, if a democratic system for making decisions was implemented?

·
·
·
·
·

Understandable, but the proposal on the original post will kill the dispute of ideal staking period once and for all so I personally think it's plain better than just a variable change to yet another arbitrary number.

We are not democracy. The number of accounts voting in favor of something doesn't matter.

·
·
·
·
·
·

We are not democracy. The number of accounts voting in favor of something doesn't matter.

Then why ask us? Let the whales choose what they want and vote for what they want - but we will stand aside and see how many more people will escape from the platform!

·
·
·
·
·
·
·

I share your concerns personally. I will note that intelligence may not involve immediate economic benefits, but it is of critical import to economic issues.

The social interactions on Steem are OSINT intelligence mechanisms, in that regard.

Thanks!

·
·
·
·
·
·
·

As you weigh people's various responses, you can make out a better understanding of situations in general. This helps both big and small stakes to build their opinion. So why ask? To measure the reaction, to learn from people's input, to better understand the human side of the consequences of their actions, etc.

·
·
·
·
·
·
·

So people with a lot of stake know what people in general (regardless of stake) want? As you said, if opinions of people with smaller stake are straight up ignored we can just leave, degrading the value of the network as a whole, destroying the value of their stake. How are they supposed to know what we want if they don't even ask us?

·
·
·

It's more than 2%. Some people never powered down. For them it's a long term commitment anyway.

·
·
·
·

^ That's me. I've never powered down. I'd probably go for 6-8 month power down because all my plans are super long term.

·
·
·
·
·

All this talk of APR ... we need to embrace the 2020 DEFI trend issued down by illuminati decree

lets make a no loose lottery with SBD and SP

https://cryptobriefing.com/defis-first-no-loss-lottery-raises-million-interest-accrues/

More importantly, even if a user doesn’t win, they get their deposit back, according to a blog post from PoolTogether.

im high but i bet this can work on steem , mix it all together drink it in a big APR milkshake i got those eosio smart contracts and steem engine side contract hype, liquidity, volume, demand. DPOS

Proof ... of... Brain.. Power down your sanity

the wallet is you
HEQcFDJ.gif

·
·
·
·
·
·

I'm not sure I understand any of the concepts you mentioned. Dunno how you can make a no-loss lottery.

·
·
·
·
·
·
·

I just learned about it yesterday and think we need this on eosio with steem engine with mah steemp steem token that has smart contracts

At 699,927 lottery tickets (each DAI representing one ticket), the probability of a single ticket winning the pool is 0.00000142. A user’s odds of winning increase as they purchase more tickets, but they also forego more guaranteed yield from lending the funds elsewhere.

, theyre simply combining no loss stable coins that earn you guaranteed interest, with lottery tickets.

just look at the article they explain it like this:

it seems like interesting stuff

·

curation rewards are also a big incentive to hold some steem ....

·
·

Yes, especially since the last HF.

I wonder if its technically possible to scale the curation returns dependent on the time period you lock steem in for?

Deferring it seems fine given lack of clear consensus, but I don't know that there would be clear consensus for the more complicated idea either (already in this thread there are some clear disagreements about how it might work and whether it is worth doing), so I would simply reduce this to "not going to implement right now" and leave the rest to further discussion.

·

This topic feels even more divided to me than the 50/50 debate. However, once we've got SMTs out of the way, I'm sure that we can get it done or rather Steemit Inc has capacities to truly implement a proposed solution.

·
·

steem will always be divided untill 1. steem prices go up 2. steemit inc steps in uses that steempower and throws some vote weight around, makes some dreams come true, changes some lives, has professional heart string pulling authors writing articles about steem everyday using this mascot
images (7).png

hey Im a rip off of Coindesk/Cointelegraph! Use me in your cartoony photoshop filter version of reality and paint a glossy image of steem everyday! Imagine the steem tribe we could create JUST for making news ABOUT crypto. Like Steemleo but no STEEM or LEO just CRYPTO. i bought the domain http://ChatCrypto.org and http://CryptoWars.org specifically for this purpose, to have some general overall crypto steem news sites.

Anyway what was the topic? steem power down? yeah man EOS is 3 days the whole thing feels much more like a bank like where people will put big money, steem needs some sort of SBD DEFI solution too .

We can get EOS SBDP on Newdex and Monaco card . I think SBDP on steem engine and newdex as a low supply EOS token would pump as, the SBD price on newdex couldnt drop too far as people could always generate new EOS SBDP from SBD, it will be fantastic. ive heard thats how steem pumped to $8 because SBD was such a low supply token lol i cant wait i need to buy so much steem to get ready i asked so many people to buy 100k STEEM at 10 cents, god, $10,000 got you 100,000 Stem, cant wait for $8 ATh even if BTC is even higher, steem will eventually be recognized when we just activate our army of incubating orcs , and unleash them onto the twitters. it has taken 3 years to grow the steem monster but its almost ready to become an akira like monster and absorb things, its already happening inside steem engine.

I am glad to see that The Steemit Team is not in favor of adding this to the SMT hard fork. Let the SMT hard fork stand alone. Your proposal would also allow time for people to think about what they want and what direction to take the shortened proposal. There is a lot for people to think about on this shortening of time than perhaps people realize.

Right now vested Steem (Steem Power) allows you to do everything, vote, curate, select witnesses. If a short power down cycle with all benefits is allowed there is nothing to prevent an agent of discord to come in with a lot of Steem, power it up, stack the witnesses for hard forks, or self vote, curate and run. So a lot of things need to be thought about in the sense of "how do we prevent???" scenario's.

·

Exactly what I’m thinking with the bad actors and not properly incentivizing long term behaviors, so I’d rather see all SP influence scale with lockup period rather than just earned interest. If theycallmedan chooses a year lockup and ranchorelaxo chooses 5 days... I do not want their votes having equal influence.

·
·

I just hope they, (steemit Dev team), are able to resist the tug-o-war of why wait do it now and try to add it into the SMT hard fork. SMT hard fork has been delayed enough, and with that the need/want/desire to change the withdrawal system may have other things to consider that have not been thought of yet.

·
·
·



@bashadow you have received 23 ENGAGE from @preparedwombat!
View and trade the tokens on Steem Engine.


This tip bot is powered by witness untersatz!

This is a terrible idea. Change for the sake of change is never good and it never works out well. This is the problem with all "republics" (we are a republic of money where dollars are votes).

Republics get so busy thinking about all the things they CAN change, that no one really stops to ask if you should change this. This is why new laws get passed every year as well and why year after year we are less free.

The steemit dao is just another republic and we need to be careful not to fall into the republic trap.

I admit, this idea is better than the previous 4 weeks proposal. But it still wants to change the drawdown period. There's not been a single person who could dent the price who has said to me. "Dale I'd hop in that steem pool and power up, if only it were a shorter period to draw down man!".

If you can bring some big time crypto investors onto a discussion panel who say the only reason they aren't invested in steem is the power down period but they would if it were only x weeks. Then you'll get my vote.

But the truth is no one is avoiding steem, not the people I know anyways. It's not avoidance, it's ignorance. Our job should be to educate them.

Anyone speculating on steem needs to buy steem. Anyone who's actually trying to build the community and the ecosystem, should be focused on powering up for as long as possible.

I implore you. Please stop looking to change fundamentals and focus more on dialing in what we've already got... Things like the API, need to really be expanded.

·

"...the truth is no one is avoiding steem, not the people I know anyways."

Out of your anecdotal experience, it is demonstrable that folks aware of Steem are indeed not piling on. Other than that, I pretty strongly agree with your comment.

Thanks!

·
·

Yes. Many people are avoiding Steem. You can see it in the statistics that the number of the daily active users on the Steem blockchain is constantly decreasing (dropping/falling) since months. Nowadays only about 31-32 000 accounts are active daily. And there are more than 1.3 million Steem accounts. The main reason is probably the low real human interactions. Nowadays people are posting around 29-39 000 posts per day, but the average number of comments is about 3. And most of these comments are bot and/or spam comments. The selfishness and the greed of the people is ruining the Steem blockchain.

·
·
·

It's not just selfishness and greed, it's also a poor UX and complicated sign-up process.

Cg

·

This is why new laws get passed every year as well and why year after year we are less free.

"... I am a new man, so to speak, like you, apparently free... But as you well know, appearances can be deceiving, which brings me back to the reason "why we are here"? We are not here, because we are free, we are here, because we are not free. There is no escaping reason, no denying purpose, because as we both know, without purpose, we would not exist." – Agent Smith, The Matrix Reloaded (2003).

·
·

There is no escaping reason, no denying purpose, because as we both know, without purpose, we would not exist." – Agent Smith, The Matrix Reloaded (2003).

Unless...

There is no purpose of living. ¡Living is the purpose!

I feel everything is being made more complicated, I would at least decrease it by two weeks to 10 just for easier math. Also compromise.

Interesting approach. I am for a instant power down for a 5-10% burn fee. (Agree with @Jrcornel response- with multi-factor identification and and white listed accounts etc... as protection against hacks) - is a instant power down even possible on Steem, or is 5 days the quickest?

I’ll think of this idea more and give a more detailed response on my thoughts.

Whatever the decision is I highly agree to postpone the change until after the SMT hardfork.

·

Instant power down is a security risk. If your account gets hacked the attacker can take 90-95% of your SP instantly and you lose everything.

·
·

The instant power down + burn fee could be optional. If you opt-in, you are sacrificing increased security for the ability to exit quickly.

Personally, if I had a second account that was whitelisted for me to withdraw to, an alt account (future could be a light account), for example, that would be fine for me. We can set it up so that anytime that whitelisted withdrawal address is changed, it takes a week before you can withdraw again. So even if my account was hacked, they could not instantly power down and send it to an exchange.

I'm not sure if we can have 2FA on withdrawals? If so, that would be another great feature to have, regardless of instant power down or not. Something like what ledger has, where you need to click ok on your physical device before the withdrawal goes through.

·
·
·

To be transparent, I feel these are changes I would like as an investor, and what other investors might like also. But, people do bring up good points to me how new people would want the instant power down, click on a scam link and get their account drained. And that would be terrible PR for Steem.

So I am not sold on the instant power down from an overall perspective. I do like to try and think of ways to get the cake and eat it too.

·
·

Instant powerdown could be an advanced setting for those who are aware of the associated risks.

·
·
·

What about @yabapmatt idea?

In my opinion the whole powering up/down thing should work a little differently. The idea is that if you want to have control over things on the network like witnesses and the reward pool, you need to make some kind of commitment. So that's really what Steem Power is - it's the commitment to stay invested in Steem for a certain period of time.
The problem is that it's not a fixed period of time, it's 13 weeks from when you start to power down. Instead I think that SP should be able to be powered down instantly as long as it's been powered up for at least 13 weeks.
This way, powering up is committing to stay invested in Steem for 13 weeks, and after that you've met your commitment and can power down instantly.

Could be this proposal an intermediate compromise between attract new investors and lesser down security risks?

·
·
·
·

Hm. Interesting idea. Could also work, but this would most likely require a bigger refactor than other options.

·
·
·
·
·

Yep! an interesting idea worth to throw a neuron or two on it right? :)

However, I can't see how this idea could likely require a bigger refactor than other options. I see it way more easy to implement than the many, multiple and diverse that have already been suggested throughout this post. Including those proposed by @steemitblog.

Do you care to elaborate where you see the 'bigger' difficulty?

·
·
·
·
·
·

It might not be that different actually. The logic around weekly powerdowns would have to be replaced with a lock-in for a certain period of time.

·
·
·
·
·
·
·

Well, those lock-ins for a certain period of time is precisely what I find most interesting and accurate on @yabapmatt optics about how address more directly the solution @steemitblog is posing. Well, at least while commitment never stops being present in the 'algorithmic' equation. Because otherwise, ¿Where's The Love? };)

·
·
·
·

I would still make it opt-in based or with another security layer.

What if an account is compromised right after the lock-in period expires? Wouldn't that allow the person with access to the account to withdraw all SP at once (assuming all SP is unlocked)?

·

5 day is to prevent someone from an instant power down -> power up new account and double-triple-etc vote on the same post with the same stake.

·
·

That could be sorted. For example nobody can start a powedown procedure unless their VP is sitting at 95%+...

·

Although now that I think about it someone could technically do this since posts pay out after 7 days, hmm. Don't remember what the exact thought process was behind making undelegations 5 days but it was something about preventing "double votes" AFAIK.

·
·

VP regenerates in 5 days, the post payout window doesn't matter.

If you move forward with a "longer pays better" system then there must be a penalty for those who "promise" longer power ups but power down early. those penalties should then be added to the reward pool or burnt or wtv

this system would introduce a whole new level of complexity to the system which might not be something the community can handle right now...

Maybe they should be grateful power downs are no longer 104 weeks and just focus on marketing and speculation. Pumping the price will bring goodness all around.

I don't mind if the power down is shortened.

I don't see any reason to add a more complicated internal process instead of focusing on market awareness and usability.

This is more making changes to feel like a you did something.

I don't care if you do it, but there are other things that could make a bigger difference

·

Agree with this in terms of priorities. Although with the community going ahead with two polls on the issue (ironically spending more time debating it than has ever been done marketing Steem or people's content), it more or less forces Steemit Inc to give a thoughtful reply. So not sure I would make it sound like they made this change to "feel like they did something".
But we certainly need to come around to more important topics.

·
·

Okay, good point... they are just responding.

I'm not going to make a big deal out of it, because it isn't a big deal.

Edited to ask how this supports your stated number 1 goal of onboarding?

·

I don't see any reason to add a more complicated internal process instead of focusing on market awareness and usability.

Given people the right amount of incentives for locking up their stake is critical. Right now, 13 weeks is a random number the devs came up with when reducing it from 2 years powerdown. There is absolutely no reason why we should keep this legacy approach around, which isn't catering to different individuals, but rather is forcing everyone to have the same mindset (power it up for 3 months or you won't be able to participate)

·
·

I've never heard anyone say on Twitter, Steem or elsewhere. They were going to buy Steem but the power down period is too long. I lean slightly towards shortening it would be a good thing.

As I've said... I don't mind shortening it, making it complicated is just what many on Steem like to do in the name of "incentives".

I also find it interesting I haven't seen anyone look at the data we currently have to help make the decision. For instance, how many accounts impacting x amount of Steem are in full powerdown. One could assume that anyone who isn't in full power down, doesn't want or need a faster power down. (historically, would be even better, so see if there is a running average)

No one has done any market research such as an internal and external poll to determine how many people have avoided powering up due to the power down period. Clearly that was an issue if you remember when we had 104 week power downs... and it was clear it was an issue.

My opinion this is internal guessing on making more changes, without much thought to feel like we are making improvements.

Tell me Wolf, would you have a goal of what percentage of Steem you would like to see powered up?

Currently.. 127,853,120 Liquid STEEM (37.747% of supply) About 62 percent, is powered up (I'm rounding) The highest I've ever seen is 72%... What would you see as optimum?

If you don't have a goal and aren't sure of the results you are trying to achieve.. It is like throwing a dart at a dart board blindly and hoping it hits.

·

But this doesnt do anything though. Those that were powered up will remain so, those that arent wont be.
Giving a choice when powering up as to how long you will be powered up means nothing.

The point was to increase steem mobility, liquidity etc. Not adding a pointless complicated process.

·
·

I think we agree, see my next comment.

Sounds reasonable to me. The more choices for the user the better. Also, maybe power down should have its own key to prevent potential hacks.

I'm not sure the power down period is our biggest obstacle to building the userbase. Most will not have enough Steem in the short term to worry too much about it. I know we need people who will invest serious amounts and we want them to stick around rather than power down as soon as the price shifts. The original power down was 2 years, so there must have been a good case for making it long. If there is a quicker option then there should be penalties involved.

I think if it's done this way it has to scale the number of vests on the platform too. This would really open us up to exchanges deciding to stake and vote for things like witnesses if it's 100% vested for just 1 day. If it's a 5 day withdrawal period that they select it should be 5/91 the total vests.

Thank you, this is a reasonable approach to the issue.

Sounds good, for the safety of the account owners funds I'd recommend the minimum to be 4 weeks but I wouldn't be against raising the maximum to more than 13 weeks with this new proposal. Will be interesting to see what others think about giving accounts settling for 6-12 months powerdowns the current max inflation though, I think they'd deem it unfair when they now are receiving max inflation at 13 weeks but it's definitely going to be an interesting discussion.

grabs popcorn

·

I think they'd deem it unfair when they now are receiving max inflation at 13 weeks but it's definitely going to be an interesting discussion.

It shouldn't be possible for 13 weeks powerdown stake to earn the same priviliges/inflation as 6 months or 12 months. People should be able to increase their powerdown time though, even after its staked.

·
·

There's also the idea to burn the "missed out" inflation from those with lower powerdowns though, guess it'll all need way more discussions and pros and cons so probably a good thing they are delaying it.

·
·

Oh yeah, I mean considering now they are already receiving max inflation they are going to be disappointed finding out they'll have to increase their powerdown time to get back to max inflation. Maybe something can be sorted where those with shorter powerdowns give their "missed out" inflation to those with longer so the 13 week one stays as is.

·
·
·

If they added this, it would be a sure way to keep investors away from STEEM.

You effectively increased the powerdown times for everyone across the board since the incentive is moved much further down the line.

If 13 weeks is too long right now and you earn max ROI at that point, by adding this change the 13 week SP would no longer earn max ROI . Some would just leave STEEM because in order to earn the same they would have to lock their SP for longer.

1,2,3,4,5 year powerup would earn more so if youre looking for ROI you pick the highest %ROI option.

This would be a sure way to kill STEEM since there are rarely any crypto investors willing to lock up their funds for so long while shorter powerup times are pointless.
Investors would just stay away even more so.

This is by far the worst idea made in this discussion.

·
·

My primary consideration regarding utility of vesting is security, although that may be dismissed as due to my personal experience, and lack of interest in economic factors. I do not see more than a marginal benefit to security arising from extending the powerdown period. Certainly, I do not see that investing the resources requisite to effecting such changes as reasonable considering the extant market.

I reckon devs have more pressing concerns, as should we all. I agree with others that this post is a necessary reaction to misapprehending investment of nescient parties, and maintaining focus on existing development priorities should continue.

Thanks!

The Interest rate (currently 2.19%) is low enough that the potential liquidity is far more appealing. I am not sure 2.19% interest rate is a strong enough encouragement, especially giving how volatile the price is.

If it's not broken don't try to fix it.
In this whole debate, I never heard how many stupid moves and decisions this current setup prevented. Shorter power down will only benefit a couple of skilled speculators. Most people will succumb to emotions and lose steem and money.
I experienced this many times with other shitcoins. Locked steem in SP is always there and safe.
But that just me.

On PoW chains you can "invest" x money (burned by paying for hardware resources) to gain control over the network (51% attack)

On Steem you could do similar attempt by taking control over enough SP to vote for witnesses. Currently you have to risk value of your "investment" for 13 weeks. With 5 days, attacker (well, you can't even call him that way) can chose good moment (favorable market conditions, etc.) to take control over Steem platform with relatively low price and risk.

Keeping higher (current) lockout time for SP to be eligible for witness voting would solve that issue.

·

"Keeping higher (current) lockout time for SP to be eligible for witness voting would solve mitigate that issue."

FTFY

Otherwise, I completely agree. This is an additional security issue that has heretofore not been well characterized.

Thanks!

·

In my envisioned implementation, the bonus VESTS for longer staking would be tracked separately and not be used for voting rights, just financial incentive.

·
·

I think @gtg's point is that the bonus VESTS should count toward voting, and maybe the penalty for shorter staking, at least when it comes to voting, should be quite high. (Not expressing my own view here, just pointing out how I read it.)

·
·
·

Either way, it is fairly trivial to implement. You either add the value or don't. It is not significant to the implementation, only the design. The design is in a very early stage (we are still focused on SMTs).

·
·

Vests should be vests.

Dear Steemit Team,

There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Mark Twain

Why omitting to say that the number of voters is not balanced at all?

  • HF Proposal: Vote to Reduce Power Down Period to 4 Weeks => 404 supporters
  • HF Proposal: Vote AGAINST Reducing Power Down Period to 4 Weeks => 127 supporters

Another beautiful proof that on Steem only the one who has the most power really counts and that the rest is only a figuration of a semblance of democracy.

There are 1,361,763 accounts on STEEM of which 51,220 were active in January (source), there are 531 supporters (no, I didn't check to see if there were people who upvoted for both).

That mean: (531/51,220)*100 = 1,0367 % of all active accounts expressed themselves, congratulations, this is a great success.

As regards the alternative approach, I have nothing against it since there is no decision making in it but a transfer of the choice to the account holders.

Personally my position would have been more in favour of a delay impacted by the amount of the "Power Down", the bigger it is, the longer it takes. This favours small power down that have less impact on the trading markets than large ones ;)

I personally liked the idea of say a 10 week power down time frame with the ability to do an instant power down while paying a 10% fee (with multi-factor identification and/or white listed accounts etc... as protection against hacks)

Not quite sure how I feel about the current proposed option. It seems to add a lot of complexity to an already complex platform. The learning curve is steep on here and this would make it that much steeper. Need to think about it for a bit.

·

I think this is a very reasonable approach that should be given much more consideration. This isn't that crazy of an idea, and the burned steem could go back into the Reward Pool...

·

I think this is a good idea. But would you want these 10 percent to go back in the reward pool or for those tokens to be burned ? I think burning the tokens would be good to counter inflation. Because when there is a bear market it seems more people tend to power down, and that coupled with the inflation rate really hits hard on the value of Steem.

·
·

Yep, I agree. I would push for them to be burned. I am not sold on that 10% number but it would need to be high enough to counter someone voting 10 times, powering down instantly, powering up another account and voting 10 times etc and having it be economically beneficial to do so. The fee must be high enough to make that line of thinking uneconomical...

·
·
·

Yea it’s a bit tricky to figure out the exact percentage but nonetheless it’s a much easier and better solution then choosing how long you want to lock up your Steem

I don’t dislike this approach, but at the risk of adding complexity, I’d almost rather see it implemented across all facets of Steem Power influence. If you can scale interest earnings according to stake lockup, can the same formula be applied to vote weighting in the rewards pool, witness and DAO voting? To me, the SP interest is a negligible factor compared to these. Under a chosen lockup system there’s also the chance of large stakes exercising their voting powers in a short term profit fashion knowing they can exit their position in a week should things turn south, shuffle Steem to alternate accounts, etc. I think voting efficiency should be curtailed in line with SP interest reductions when choosing shorter lockup periods.

·

Yep. I think it needs to effect stake weighted voting as well. This might add complexity, but it would provide a strong(er) incentive to power up (while also protecting against nefarious moves by large stakeholders).

Ah, wouldnt there need to be an in-between point where it is possible to lock up some for a longer period, while keeping some available for short-term. Perhaps the barely used savings wallet could become the short term holding point with the combined steem between it and the SP being the voting power. This way the 5 day power down to lose all would only affect the savings wallet - it would need a name change :)

·

I think the Savings feature should definitely be improved where it's possible to choose how long a person can "Save" their funds.

AND

I think a person should be able to Power Up their funds as short or as long as they want but Voting for Witnesses & the #SteemDao should be reserved for people who Power Up for 13 weeks or more to prevent Exchanges from using their clients funds with no skin in the game to vote.

·
·

I agree the savings feature could be improved, but I disagree that extending the power down time would really affect exchanges that wanted to vote anyway.

Exchanges have to hold a lot of coins in cold wallet type setups while keeping some in the hot wallet for daily transactions. A large exchange could hold millions in SP while ensuring they have enough liquid on hand to handle the daily transactions. They could start a power down to increase their liquid, but if they have enough on hand, they can still power up, vote, etc while having enough to service their customers.

·
·
·

A simple way to analyze this is to look at extremes.

If there was a 1 second Power Down time exchanges would probably power everything up.

But if there was a 10 year Power Down time, they'd probably Power Up much less. So I don't think it is about the Power Down time not influencing them from Powering up but by how much.

P.S. I also didn't advocate for increasing the Power Down time but I want it to stay at 13 weeks.

·

I like the idea to bring the Savings account into the game at the same time. It's practically not used now.

·

Easiest would be perhaps two different account - one with a shorter and the other with a longer power down, with delegating SP from the long term to the "working" account.

·
·

Yes, but of the idea of communities and SMTs is about single account with flexibility. Thinking that there is a cost for accounts and a user comes in and then finds out they need to buy a second for security seems an unnecessary barrier. I would prefer simplification over complication, and that would likely be not looking into much of this at all and instead securing accounts in a better way, like 2fa.

This is exactly what I figured would happen. More debate on the changes are needed to come out with a satisfactory outcome.

There is no rush. Differing Power down times for.different users solves most problems.

Investors can still make great profits and curators can use this new info (stake time length) to evaluate content creators further.

Binary decisions aren't appropriate unless extremely popular 17~20 is too close for such a decision.

·

Binary decisions aren't appropriate unless extremely popular 17~20 is too close for such a decision.

Agreed

Steem would have to become an NFT. There has to be a means of determining the timelock state of any given Steem at any point so being an NFT would allow for that. I am all for having a variable levels of "permissions" dependent upon the timelock status of an account's holdings. Those that are fully vested for the current timeframe would have full permissions and with each step down in time, (say 2 weeks) permissions would be lost such as voting for witnesses, DAO, etc.

While tempting I would much rather have the SMTs actually get finished and forked before the focus moves elsewhere.

·

It is actually very simple to implement this without making STEEM NFTs. Rather than time locking each satoshi STEEM, we allow an account to set a maturation date on their Steem Power. When the account powers up, bonus VESTS would be allocated as a function of how much STEEM is being powered up and how much time the account has left before the maturation date. The maturation could be increased at will for most bonus VESTS, but never decreased.

For those unware, VESTS are an internal tracker of claims against the Steem Power pool. An account's VESTS do not change over time. As STEEM from inflation is added to the pool, the value of 1 VESTS in STEEM increases so that when you withdraw it later, it is worth more. On the UI, we do this conversion for you and display Steem Power in STEEM, not VESTS, at the current value of VESTS to STEEM.

For users wanting multiple maturation dates, it is fairly simple to create multiple accounts with different maturation dates and delegate all of the Steem Power to one centralized account that is regularly used.

·
·

Love this ^

·
·

Would this be possible to work into the wallet so there could be a slider or two that govern just a pair, SP and Savings and the respective power down period? Make it simple but then the savings could have a variable rate as well as the main wallet/account? At least this would give 2 options for everyone and then if needed they could go into other accounts and delegation.

·
·
·

Steem Power is the variable rate savings account. The on chain "savings" account is simply a time locked account for security purposes only. A variable time lock on the savings account would seem rather doable. No promises though. Just my initial opinion on the technical difficulty of the change. All changes need to be discussed and weighed both in terms of importance and difficulty.

·
·

Unrelated, but I posed this same question to Andrew above...

Do you guys have anyone that fills out exchange applications on a consistent basis? Steem is starting to lag many of its peers in terms of exchange listings and if that doesn't change there is a real chance it gets left behind if/when there is another altseason...

I am looking at a list of the top exchanges by volume and steem is on very few of them...

If some exchanges require listing fees we could get the SPS/DAO to fund those, but I really think this should be made a priority for those not doing development work especially while we are still in a bear market as it will likely only get harder and more expensive if/when there is another full on bull market.

Do whatever you think is good for steemit.. i will support you guy out.

I am glad to read this rational consideration of this proposal. I am most gratified to see that you note it is best to not impede extant HF implementation by this additional complication.

I suggest that you include a link to the DAO for all of your posts concerning DAO proposals, to facilitate participation in the DAO.

Thanks!

·
·
·

Do you guys have anyone that fills out exchange applications on a consistent basis? Steem is starting to lag many of its peers in terms of exchange listings and if that doesn't change there is a real chance it gets left behind if/when there is another altseason...

I am looking at a list of the top exchanges by volume and steem is on very few of them...

If some exchanges require listing fees we could get the SPS/DAO to fund those, but I really think this should be made a priority by those not doing development work, especially while we are still in a bear market as it will likely only get harder and more expensive if/when there is another full on bull market.

SMTSs first.
I have thought about the whole power down time change too and come to the conclusion, just let it be as it is.
Resteemed :-)

Terrible idea.

The point is to increase Steem liquidity on exchanges, give investors incentives to come in and to increase Steem mobility.
With this you do none of that.

If an investor wants to earn from the ecosystem they need to lock up for the max period which vast majority will not do.
Locking up for shorter time means a loss and is pointless.
What will end up happening is that investors will simply stay away.

We need more market participation by those that believe in Steem that would, in your case just power up for max time.
This literally adds nothing positive or changes behavior which we want to happen.
Probably the single worst idea ive heard regarding this change, sry.

<