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

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

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

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

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

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