[공지] @proxy.token 증인 투표 운영 방침(@proxy.token witness voting policy)
@proxy.token 증인 투표 운영 방침(@proxy.token witness voting policy)
- 현재 스팀 블록체인 증인은 구 증인 그룹(5계정)과 저스틴 선 관련 증인 그룹(15계정)이 대립하고 있는 상황입니다.
( Currently, the STEEM blockchain witness group is at odds with the former witness group(5 accounts) and Justin Sun witness group(15 accounts).
)
- 이로 인해, 스팀 블록체인의 변화를 주도할 수 있는 하드포크를 양쪽 진영 모두 진행할 수 없는 상태입니다.관련자료
(Because of this, both camps are unable to proceed with hardfocks that can lead to changes in the STEEM blockchain. Related Link)
- 트론에서 인수한 스팀잇에서는 오픈 레터를 통해 앞으로의 계획을 밝혔습니다.
(The Steemit acquired by Tron reveals its future plans in an open letter.)
- 구 증인 그룹에서는 투표 독려 활동 이외에 구체적인 로드맵을 제시하지 않았습니다.
(The Former Witness Group did not provide a specific roadmap other than the campaign to encourage voting. .. witness voting ? delegating proxy ? )
- @proxy.token에서는 아래의 사항에 대한 증인들의 입장이 확인되는대로, @proxy.token를 통한 증인 투표를 진행할 예정입니다.
(@proxy.token will vote on witnesses as soon as witnesses confirm their position on the following:)
증인들에 대한 요청 사항(Request opinion to witnesses)
- SP 파워다운 기간을 3일~7일로 단축할 의향이 있는가?
(Are you willing to shorten the SP power-down period to three to seven days from current period? )
- 스팀 블록체인의 다운보팅을 제거할 의향이 있는가?
(Are you willing to remove down-voting policy of STEEM blockchain? )
- 스팀 블록체인에 스마트 컨트랙트를 도입할 의향이 있는가?
(Are you willing to introduce smart contact into the STEEM block chain? )
- 유료 구독 모델을 도입할 의향이 있는가?
(Are you willing to introduce a paid subscription model?)
@proxy.token은 640만 스팀파워를 프록시받은 steemcoinpan 커뮤니티 증인 투표권자로서, 상기 질문에 대한 증인들의 공개적인 답변을 검토한 후 증인투표 방향을 결정할 것입니다.
(@proxy.token is a proxy witness voter in the Steemcoinpan community with 6.4 million steem power, and will decide the direction of the witness voting after reviewing witnesses' public answers to the above questions.)
A few days power down is too short and opens the door for vote abuse on rewards: vote, powerdown, powerup/delegate to another account, revote. This is unacceptable. The minimum should be >7 days (past the reward payout). Also, short powerdowns allow hackers/phishers to steal funds very fast before account recovery is processed. The power down has been extensively discussed and I'm in favor of a 4 week period, it's a good compromise especially for security reasons.
The downvotes were designed to prevent abuse, otherwise it would be a wild west for circle jerking and reward milking. However as mentioned by @netuoso, with the upcoming SMT's you can control downvotes and exclude bad users are you please.
Sure, why not, adding technology to the STEEM blockchain is always welcomed. It may require a lot of development (look at SMT's... we're still waiting for them after 3 years of promises).
You can have your own model right now without any additional blockchain development. By creating accounts for users yourself and giving the private posting and active keys to your subscribers, while retaining the master password and owner key. After the subscription expires, you change the password, which will consequently change all the private keys. If the user renews subscription, you give them the new posting/active key. And finally, with communities, you can grant the users access to them or not. The current system is very flexible as you can see, and readily allows a custom tailored subscription model.
I hope I answered all your concerns. I'm witness @drakos and your vote would be appreciated, especially in this troubled time. Thank you.
Interesting idea re paid subscription model - it already works. So why not use it.
And it's easy to implement in any web app.
Hey @sct, @proxy.token team.
It seems you already moved in a direction with the new tron imposed witnesses without giving time to chat to the old community selected witnesses.
To clarify to you the situation a bit further, we are at a stance that could make or break the steem blockchain. There are clearly malicious actions taking place from tron side to overtake the steem blockchain which started in coordination with exchanges as well, with the real intent is to simply move steemit as a dapp to tron and without any real plans for steem as a blockchain. This jeopardizes the existance of the blockchain itself.
This is why our community and witnesses and pushing to ensure the blockchain is controlled by the community, not a single entity imposing tron's intentions, which is at the core of how decentralized systems are intended to function.
In terms of your questions, and while we cannot respond on behalf of the community or the witnesses, yet we can at least confirn our vision altogether to grow and improve the blockchain in itself, including SMTs(smart contracts) and creating further growth roadmaps.
The time now is to work on ensuring the survival of steem blockchain and creating a better community-induced growth to it.
In the worst case, and should you still believe that the whole community stands differently than the way you perceive things, and as we believe you would intend for the whole ecosystem to grow, and if you sense you are undecided as to how to proceed, i would suggest removing your current votes so as not to tilt the balance to any side.
Thanks for your comments.
we had a long discussion with steem members including witnesses and cleared key issues few hours ago. You may find it has done what you wished.
Thanks for the positive reaction and discussions.
Thank you, indeed very appreciative of this, i was joining/chatting intermittently to the team on discord due to being on the road.
Looking forward for further collaboration to grow Steem further, all together.
Thanks for the questions.
While shorter power-down period adds flexibility to investors so that they can get out sooner when needed, on the other hand, it adds uncertainty to decision making E.G. SPS voting thus may impact development.
IMO the system should find a balance to attract both short-term and long-term investors. Perhaps we could have 2 types of SP, one type is short-term which is for daily activities E.G. posting and post voting, the other is long-term which is for decision making E.G. witness and SPS voting.
"Gaming the reward pool" has always been a concern, that's why the down-voting feature is there. IMO down-voting should cost the voter something, because "stake talks". For example, my @adm account has been "donated" to @steemcleaners to fight bad contents since the very beginning of Steem, at my own cost.
Introducing smart contract is generally a good idea. However, there might be technical issues involved. On the other hand, although there are a few blockchains with smart contracts doing well, there are also quite some blockchains support smart contracts but nobody use them. The competition is hot. So, I'd say, if we have the resources (developers, funds and etc) and we can afford to lose the competition, we can do it. The key is to find our niche.
I'm not sure what does this mean. It seems a business on top of the chain to me, but not something to be built into the consensus. Generally we welcome all legit businesses.
Can this not be resolved with the upcoming SMTs? People can design their power-downs however they see fit, no?
I would like Steem, as the backbone of it all, to ultimately be incredibly robust and stable in which people can't just P&D, hack & steal, and so forth.
Well anyway, I do think 13 weeks seems weirdly arbitrary and lengthy, but 1 month seems totally reasonable to me
支持两种类型的sp
I am open to discussions to lower it further (mind you the powerdown had changed from 2 years to 13 weeks) however I want to prevent too much "fast food voting" where investors come & go and just move to steem for some botvoting for a week and move out again. I'd consider that raping the reward pool and destructive to the community.
If used for its intended reasons it is a great way to curate or anti-curate content. If abused it is an annoyance. Removing down-voting alltogether might fix a lot of drama's :)
I am not certain the Steem chain is really optimized for executing smart contracts. Curious what you are thinking of and/or missing specifically.
Again, I'm curious to learn more about this. If it's about unlocking encrypted content only to those paying... Interesting and could be a nice business model!
With regards,
@roelandp
루 란 피 드림
Despite our differences you guys are also Steem stakeholders. Some of you big ones.
Aren’t you concerned that your investment might go down the toilet? Just look at Justin’s methods...
He only cares about his personal growth. Not you not me and definitely not Steem.
If you are uncertain of what you should do simply do nothing. There might not be Steem at all after this vote of yours...
Reconsider
To the korean community:
First of all, thanks for having upvoted the necessary amount of top witnesses to protect the chain against being controlled by one single entity. That was a honourable step.
Second we would like to comment on your opinion requests:
I have my serious doubts about shortening the power down period to less than 4 weeks. The problem I mainly see is that a too short period will give custodians accounts - such as exchanges - the possibility to power-up customer stake to inference in the blockchain governance. Today we are protected by the fact that powering-up the stake will effectively lock the customers liquid stake which could derive in the possibility for them to perform withdrawals on request. Imagine what would happened if you go to your bank to cash out some money and they deny your paynment due to liquidity shortage. Even worse, the bank tells you that they have invested your stake in a long-term investment fond.
At the same time,I agree that 13 weeks could be too long for a sort-to-mid term investors type and it could force them to his invested stake liquid loosing the paid interest rate distribute among SP holders to compensate inflation.
I in-fact see the need of the actual downvoting policy and I will not willing to remove it until we find a way to ensure or support content discoverability. As you know, we are a content oriented social network. The economic incenivation should be done in a way that the network rewards "good" content better than bad or abusive content, Of course, content curation is subjectve measurement but we need a way to signalice likes as well as dislikes. Might be it will be usefull to have other kind of not that negative user interface, since a just a dislike (downvote) is not representative enough. Sometimes you agree that a post would be not worth more than, han 10 dolars. If the potential reward at the time of voting is 20 dolars, the curator will press the "downvoting". The autor would than get the impression than the curator does not like his post at all, but in reallity, he likes it, just not "that much". Perhaps a change in the UI to signalice that you are willing to value it at 10% and the sistem performs the vote/downvote automatically depending on your tarhet value.
I think to introduce smart-contracts capabiities into STEEM blockchain will result into more costly and unpredictable operations. Thd good thing about steem that it does not too many things - only social operations - but these are quick and cheap and much more escalable for a muldi dapp blockchain.
And at least, sorry for my bad english. As you might know, im a proud spanish native speaker.
Cervantes, can you write a witness post so that I can resteem it on my blog?
My Spanish is bad, but I'll try:
¿Puedes escribir un post en el blockchain describiendo porque la gente debería votar para ti? Yo quierdo a resteem tu post.
Okay, I'm happy to use this opportunity. Not only because of the current situation, but because I think there have been a lot of misunderstandings with me, @curangel and its team the last months.
I personally like the longer power down, because it prevents me to take emotional decisions. I'm sure it is a big reason why I'm still interested in this community after 4 years. I also understand that other characters might prefer to get liquid sooner.
As other witnesses said, <7 days is difficult due to double-voting concerns. But 7 days+ for the voting stake is absolutely no issue. I would prefer when stake used for witness and SPS voting needs longer to unstake, to prove a long term commitment with these important decisions.
I am not trying to enforce my own opinion on everyone though, so if a decision between two technically sound solutions has to be made I generally try to take up as much community feedback as possible and act accordingly.
Definitely for communities and their SMT when they choose so.
For STEEM, I deem it very important to have a countermeasure to excessive self voting. If that didn't exist, I would have to self vote myself all the time, and could not use all my stake to support as many small users as possible just for the curation rewards.
Smart contract platforms do currently have scaling and other issues. But if a good solution to the problems which became emergent on all these platforms, which had to fight with chain congestions and even halts, is found, this would absolutely be a worthwhile addition. Requires time and funding though, something as complex as that can not be rushed.
Yes, either in the ways already described by for example drakos, or even better an implementation that automatically burns a percentage of the subscription fee.
I really appreciate these clearly formulated questions, and welcome anyone who wants to approach me with more to meet me on discord, write me an email or comment on a post of mine. I have always tried to be accessible to all parts of the community and especially to the non-english ones, and hope we can all find ways for better communication in the future.
I have a request too: If anyone can connect me with a curator who is interested in searching for exceptional but undervalued content in languages curangel doesn't cover enough yet, please do so! I have made several attempts especially for Korean, but unfortunately did not receive replies so far.
At most 7 days. Less than 7 days means you can Power Down Power Up and vote within the time of payout of a post, that has many security issues coming with it.
I agree with @arcange, I d agree to remove both upvotes and downvotes at Steem level and move it SMTs built on top of communities.
Steem already works via smart contracts, do you mean the possibility to add custom ones to the blockchain? Sure.
You mean at the blockchain level? That can already be done at application level with encryption and a paywall. But yea, why not.
Powerdown is a great conversation. I think we have to make it faster for investors and people only interested in post rewards, but we have to keep it slow for actual chain governance. It's bad for the chain to let people who only want to turn a very short profit to be able to take control of how the chain operates and have no stake in it's long term existence.
I currently think the best way to accomplish this is to treat steem in savings account like a SP delegation back to the account owner. So, If I @aggroed move 50k liquid steem into savings the blockchain also treats that like a 50k Sp delegation to @aggroed.
Majority of chain stake supports downvotes for steem and choices for SMTs. When we make it through this all commmunities can choose to have an SMT without downvotes.
Every smart contract chain ends up at the same place. it can't transact. Human creativity >> 1 set of servers. The best option is to limit smart contracts through layer 2 solutions and not make them entirely open. Splinterlands and steem-engine both show how you can get all the features of smart contracts with steem without forcing all computing through one set of servers. Smart contracts can also be ignored. Cryptokitties can just stop putting gen 0 on their website.
4 subsription. On the Splinterlands market we charge 5% and give it back to tournaments. We did this to give some incentive to 3rd party apps to form. Something similar could be done with steemit.com.
I like the creative use of the savings account, elegant implementation for a non-governance, faster powerdown.
I am still not convinced by additional free downvotes, we always had downvotes, they just cost VP.
With a consensus steem-engine, it would be harder to claim steem can't do smart contracts. Thank you for pushing so hard on layer 2, so steem blockchain can aim for LTS!
Yes, 7 due to prevent stake from double voting on content within the 7 day window. I would also like to see users have the option to stake for longer though (if they choose) to allow for greater security if they would prefer to have their funds locked up for longer. For users who want to power down quickly, they could choose 7.
I support individual SMTs being able to choose whether or not to allow downvoted for their SMT.
Sure, if it is properly implemented and tested.
It sure how this could be accomplished on chain, but I am open to the idea.
Someone, forgotten who, suggested those who stake longer get more mvests (or the equivalent). Staking is good for the community and chain, so why not reward those who stake longer with better access to rewards and voting influence?
Yes, exactly. Harder to code, but other than that it seems like a good idea for sure!