Power down issue: is it a zero sum game? Or can we have options?
I read with great interest the SteemitBlog post on the PowerDown Rule change. I read 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. 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 is about freedom and choice. And I think that the blockchain is sophisticated enough that we shouldn’t have to choose either one choice or another, it seems appropriate to give participants choices.
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.
This article by @tarazkp is very helpful in this regard and is a good example of the creativity and diversity we have on the Steemit and I am sure there are more: Link Here: https://steemit.com/hive-174578/@tarazkp/the-return-of-locked-stake-and-passive-earning
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.
Steemit Blog Proposal Link : https://steemit.com/steem/@steemitblog/feedback-wanted-4-week-power-down
You can vote here:
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://steemit.com/steemdao/@thecryptodrive/hf-proposal-vote-to-reduce-power-down-period-to-4-weeks
PROPOSAL AGAINST:
https://steemit.com/steemdao/@thecryptodrive/hf-proposal-vote-against-reducing-power-down-period-to-4-weeks
Note that it is my understanding that this is voting for or against changing the 4 week PowerDown.
The SMT change has a separate proposal.
✍️ written by Shortsegments
Read other articles by me on the Steemit Social Media Platform, where writers get paid for their content by the community by upvotes worth the cryptocurrency, called Steem.
Read my Steemleo investment Blog
Please follow my Twitter Feed Here
Shortsegments is a blogger or writer on the Steemit platform, where writers, photographers and video bloggers, along with other content producers get paid for posting their content. Steemit is a decentralized social media platform on a blockchain called Steem. A very important difference between Steemit and centralized platforms like Facebook, Instagram or YouTube, is that there isn’t a central authority or owner to take your account away from you and your account can’t be deleted. You are the owner of your account. Find out more at this Link
Steem Onboarding helps you apply for an account and is a series of videos which explains how Steemit works. You don’t need to understand everything about the blockchain to post content and our Onboarding help is available in six different languages.
Posted via Steemleo
Thanks for a well reasoned post, describing the need for options, they should be part of any free association. It can be argued that we agreed to 13 weeks when we joined Steemit, but that doesn’t mean the community can’t change the rules. That’s why we have HardForks. I think this is an issue whose time has come.
Nice job
!giphy good+read
Posted using Partiko iOS
giphy is supported by witness untersatz!
Thank you
You should consider adding the link to the Steemitblog proposal ; https://steemit.com/steem/@steemitblog/feedback-wanted-4-week-power-down
Posted using Partiko iOS
I agree we all agreed to the 13 week lockup when we joined, but the community can change its rules. I think you correctly point out these changes can have consequences do deliberation is needed. While it is difficult to reach consensus in such a diverse group, having options will help.
Posted using Partiko iOS
the same people who were earlier demanding to have shorter period of power down now opposing it
LOL...true.
"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."
Indeed, and that is one of the main reasons why so many members are leaving the Steemit Platform. Having to wait for 13 weeks to get our own money back is nothing short of hostage taking, and certainly not an aspect of any entity that we would want to trust much money with.
Here are the facts (as I see them):
People come and join Steemit.
Some of then buy Steem so that they can have more up-vote power.
New members unfortunately quickly discover that the payouts they receive from up-voting are nowhere remotely close to what is promoted.
They then want to cash in and leave Steemit, but to their dismay, find that they have to wait a whopping 13 weeks (1/4 of a year) to get their money back.
These disgruntled members / x-members then tell their friends, who in turn tell their friends, just what kind of a scam Steemit really is.
As a result of this and other reasons), in my opinion, the end of Steemit is getting ever closer.
Depends if you see it as money or an investment, doesn't it? I own my apartment but I can't just walk away with the value of it.
And where is a value promoted? Jerry Banfield?
While I am undecided on the time, I don't think your arguments are well reasoned and I do not believe it is "hostage taking" to have some period of time. From an investment perspective into something like a startup, it might take years to ever be able to get out of the initial investment, if at all.
You probably would be able to sell your apartment in under 13 weeks if you had to sell. :)
if i had to, I could sell it in a day. but i wouldn't like the price. Then there are the transfer taxes and stamp duty. Then there is the wait for banks and signatures. Then often, there are conditions like subject to finance and sale of other properties, then there are the costs of actually moving and relocation, plus I would still need somewhere to live so I would have to buy or rent another space etc... there are always costs involved with movement and always opportunity forgone when making decisions.
No one was forced to join Steem as far as I know and if they are actually investors, they should have done their due diligence on the investment conditions.
I don't care that much about the time, as I do not think 4 weeks will make a significant difference to the 13 for the reasons cited. It will make a difference for some people to dump though - that is fine too. Personally though, I wouldn't want to be liquidated instantly if my keys were ever stolen.
"Depends if you see it as money or an investment, doesn't it?"
Not really! If I own stocks, I can sell them them the same day, and get my money back.
"And where is a value promoted?"
Virtually everywhere on the Steemit platform! On every post, we can easily see the claimed allocations of rewards for "authors" and "curators". Yet nowhere on the Steemit site does it show how exactly curator rewards are broken down. It would stand to reason, in the mind of any logical person, that if there is going to be a payout of say $5.00 to 10 curators, that they would each receive ~$0.50. But as we all know, that is not the case. In fact, 1 or 2 of those select curators will get the vast majority of that $5.00, while the remaining 8 or 9 curators will get less than 1 cent each. That I call nothing more than fraud...a real ponzi scheme aimed at harvesting money by those at the top, at the expense of the naive at the bottom.
Only a fool would ever invest in Steemit. Yes, I was a fool, but I am on my way out (waiting for power-down).
Oh, so you don't know how curation works? it is gamified.
"Oh, so you don't know how curation works?"
Do you? If so, please tell me, or point me to information where I can find "exactly" how the $5.00 I mentioned earlier would be allocated among 10 curators.
Here you go:
https://steemit.com/steem/@vandeberg/reward-curve-deep-dive
this one too:
https://steemit.com/steem/@steemitblog/hf21-sps-and-eip-explained
Thanks, but nowhere in all that information does it clearly explain, in layman terms, exactly how the referenced $5.00 (or any amount) in curator rewards would be allocated amount 10 (or any number) members.
In fact, I would be willing to bet that not more than a handful of non-management Steemit members know what all that jargon really means. Steemit is suppose to be a user friendly forum platform for everyone, not just a few MIT grads or the like. What you have instead, is a platform build and run by high-tech people, who found a way to take an unfair advantage over those less knowledgeable. That is exactly how Steemit is structured. In short, Steemit is structured to cheat the little guy, while making the Steemit whales rather wealthy. Thank goodness I am leaving asap.
This is a stake based platform. Is your vote 5 dollars? No? Ok. is it worth 50 cents?
Well, very simply, those with more stake are going to earn more in curation than those with less. To have a 50 cent vote requires 65,000 Steem at the current prices.
So, for the 5 dollars, it would take votes from about 650,000 Steem. if 10 people all had the 65k, they would have the ame 50c vote. But, there are factors in play including when one votes and in what order, with generally those voting earlier (but not too early) getting benefit from those voting later. It is designed this way to try and encourage people to find and share posts that others will also like and vote on, therefore rewarding the earlier finders.
I won't get into it any more than this as you are leaving anyway. For your next investment, it is probably best to understand what you are investing in, before you buy. You can also buy into a traditional index fund or stocks, but beware the trading fees as they can be excessive in comparison to crypto, some as high as 25 dollars per trade, which is about 150 STEEM at these prices.
Good luck out there.
I think your comment supports the need to have options.
Posted via Steemleo
Indeed, and if you look at my last reply to you, you will see the slimy prick @bullionstackers decided to downvote yet another of my comments. Can no one stop this asshole from destroying Steemit by downvoting 100s of member for no reason whatsoever, other than the fact that he must be some kind of a retard, just like his lousy sidekick, @themarkymark.
hive-167922 · @starworld · 3 days ago (edited)
Yes, having options would be a great start. That would also give management a much better idea on what exactly the majority of members want. Sure they can run polls, but as I am sure we all realize, polls are more often than not, completely wrong, since "saying" and "doing" are two completely different concepts.
👍 shortsegments
👎 bullionstackers
https://steemit.com/hive-167922/@shortsegments/power-down-issue-is-it-a-zero-sum-game-or-can-we-have-options#@starworld/q4u7ke
..
Indeed, and if you look at my last reply to you, you will see the slimy prick @bullionstackers decided to downvote yet another of my comments. Can no one stop this asshole from destroying Steemit by downvoting 100s of member for no reason whatsoever, other than the fact that he must be some kind of a retard who can't stand someone who opposed his views, just like his lousy sidekick, @themarkymark.
hive-167922 · @starworld · 3 days ago (edited)
Yes, having options would be a great start. That would also give management a much better idea on what exactly the majority of members want. Sure they can run polls, but as I am sure we all realize, polls are more often than not, completely wrong, since "saying" and "doing" are two completely different concepts.
👍 shortsegments
👎 bullionstackers
..
Yes, having options would be a great start. That would also give management a much better idea on what exactly the majority of members want. Sure they can run polls, but as I am sure we all realize, polls are more often than not, completely wrong, since "saying" and "doing" are two completely different concepts.
..
!ENGAGE 20
@starworld you have received
20 ENGAGEfrom @tarazkp!View and trade the tokens on Steem Engine.
I think we have enough bad actors also with the 13 weeks period.
x x x
In some countries, the state made laws to protect employees, making it difficult or costly to fire them. So companies don't want to hire people because they don't want to have problems if they have to fire them. Result: Unemployment surges.
In other countries, it is easy to fire employees, so companies are also more willing to hire. In worst case they can send them away later. Result: Unemployment decreases.
Interesting analogy.