Feedback Wanted: 4 Week Power Down
Hello Steemians, in today’s post we want to talk about the proposal for a 4 week power down and how we plan to approach this issue. We are very excited about the fact that such ideas are being proposed by the community and we think that use of the Steem.DAO to gauge support is an excellent use case for this innovative tool.
Community Support
There is now sufficient community support that we must seriously consider the change. We have begun internal discussions, and we will soon release additional communications intended to provide the community with more information about the nature of this change, the potential risks/rewards, and alternate implementations.
Primary Concerns
Our primary concerns with such changes is that they represent the will of the community without posing a risk to the chain. The Steem.DAO proposal does a great job of quantifying support amongst large stakeholders, but participation in the Steem.DAO is still quite low and users can’t downvote proposals, which limits our ability to extrapolate broad support from these results.
Get Out the Vote!
Ultimately, we will base our decisions on the information we have available to us, and if that is the Steem.DAO proposal, then that is what we will use. If you agree with the proposal, it still helps to head over to the Steem.DAO and give it a vote. The more users who do vote on it, the more it becomes clear that support is truly broad. If you do not agree with the proposal then please comment on this article and publish posts clearly stating and outlining your position.
Technical Difficulty
The technical difficulty of this change is quite low because the power down rate is set when the user begins powering down. Currently, when the user begins powering down, the amount they select is divided by 13, and then every week 1/13th of that amount is distributed to the user. To implement this change, all that would be needed is to change that number from 13 to 4. Therefore, this change could be implemented without significantly delaying the SMT hardfork.
Existing power downs would continue on their existing 13 week track, but all new power downs would be for 4 weeks. If you want your existing power down to complete in 4 weeks, it is as simple as cancelling the existing power down and starting a new one! In December of 2016 we reduced the power down time from 104 weeks to 13 weeks. We would follow that pattern and have a high degree of confidence in the simplicity of this change.
Inherent Risk
When it comes to hardfork suggestions, one of our primary concerns is whether the suggested change poses a risk to the security of the chain, or the users of it. We would quantify the risk of this change as “very low.” It is a simple change, that we have done before, and would have limited second order or “knock on” effects. It is, however, a change and any change can have unforeseen consequences.
Economic Risk
The largest potential risk factors are likely in the economic sphere. Will this encourage investment or discourage it? We are not able to assess whether the potential economic upside is worth the potential economic downside, combined with the risk of unforeseeable consequences.
Security Risk
An implicit feature of Steem Power is that it time locks funds. If your account were to be compromised, it takes a week for some of your Steem Power to even be available to the attacker and 13 weeks for them to access it all. By reducing the power down time, an attacker could have access to a larger portion of your funds after just 7 days.
For these reasons, it is imperative that you make your voice heard whether it’s by voting on the proposal, or encouraging others to vote on the proposal and/or post on Steem about their opinion. We’ll continue to release communications about this change so that you can make an informed decision.
Vote!
You can vote on proposals from the Steemit Wallet https://steemitwallet.com/proposals.
We want to give a special thanks to @thecryptodrive for proposing this change and using the Steem.DAO to quantify support.
The Steemit Team
I'm not a fan. As a witness I wouldn't vote against the SMT proposal because this is included, but I think it's bad for the network to change it. Part of what makes Steem a community is that people can't just up and leave. If you have steem powered up you're going to be a part of this place for 13 weeks. I think it's part of why steem has a culture of "we all go to the same moon," as opposed to "sorry suckers that token is going up slightly faster so I'm leaving." It happens anyway, but there's a bunch of people that'll post here up until the blockchain flatlines.
I do think it's a real concern to speculators that people can't get their money out quickly. That answer is simple. Buy Steem, nut don't power up. The question I see is does it hurt investment? My guess is that there's more problems seeing the utility of Steem and getting in and out is a tiny side show. So, rather than rush a "simple fix" that I believe will hurt the community let's move it until after the hardfork and make it a burn case.
In a different version of this, Steem still has a 13 week powerdown, but you can burn some of the steem you would otherwise get if you wanted it to happen faster. Adds a burn case for steem, doens't hurt the community, and is a step closer to investor/trader friendliness.
In the larger scope of things I don't think a minor tweak of this property will drastically change things for the better. What will change things for the better is adding apps, usecases, businesses, and communities of people that are able to use Steem to make money, make a point, grow an audience, play a game, or some way that this place adds more value to their life than having dollars in a bank account does.
I'm mildly in favor of the 4 weeks. I don't think it is that big a deal either way. But I do strongly disagree with this:
What makes a strong community is that people can leave but choose not to. They renew their ties every day when they decide to stay. A "community" where people can't leave is a cult or a prison.
Fully agree with that. We are not in a bank system where we have to beg to have back our money... Why not put in place something similar to tezos where you need to wait 1 month before your delegation or power up here starts to produce interest. Like that people are free to have back all their money when they want it but they have also reason to avoid power down
Amen to this:
Dear @smooth I have been targeted by @buildawhale and he is downvoting my posts to nothing . I have posted here on steemit every day since I joined steemit in July 2016 and invested a lot of money in this and if this sort of thing is allowed to continue then steemit will never recover .
Here is what I wrote him to ask him to stop and then I will show you his response .
To @buildawhale
I do not post anything offensive and do not bother anyone .
Please leave me alone or I will power down and leave Steemit as so many others have done from these " down voting plagues."
As you well know, Steemit is declining in active accounts . As long as this type of down voting continues , Steemit has no chance of ever returning to its former glory .
It is beyond my understanding as to why you want to destroy Steemit .
Who in their right mind would ever put any money in Steemit when someone like you can come along and destroy their investment ?
I have invested money and time in this and the money was before people could down vote someone and not use some of their own voting power to do the down vote . Just look what has happened to the active accounts since the last hard-fork : I hate to say this , but If Steemit does not fix this soon , this site is doomed.
Remember the Golden Rule : " Do unto others as you would have them do unto you " . Would you really want someone with millions of Steem Power to down vote your posts to oblivion ? I think not .
And here was his response
Yeah, that's problem.
You don't do anything. You are just a mini-Haejin.
What happened after the last hardfork is that the long-running decline in active accounts, posts, etc. slowed down a bit, but not dramatically. Recently some measures of activity have been on a bit of a rebound, though it is probably too soon to say how significant or sustainable it might be.
I'm not and can't be responsible for how someone else votes.
@smooth thank you for your reply
The instant power down concept, regardless of the cost/burn, destroys the security feature altogether. A hacker won't care about burning 5% or 20% or even 50%. Anyone who is hacked will lose all their funds instantly.
Also, proposing that people invest without powering up is ignoring the cumulative cost of Steem's high inflation. If you are day trading you don't care about inflation, but few serious longer-term investors can (or will) really accept an extra 8% per year for the "privilege" of investing in Steem, especially over a longer term holding period. That would be like paying an 8%/year management fee, which is almost unheard of.
You are spot on! At such as high rate, its ridiculous and a major tax on people.
Respectfully, I find your arguments to keep long term SP contradictory for what you and Steem in general stand for. On one hand we want to give power back to people, on the other force them to lock up their funds. Doesn’t make sense. SP should be eliminated and Steem alone in the wallet can be used in a similar fashion as SP. Let the free market decide if people keep Steem here or take it to exchanges. Justifying 13 week SP with the purpose of keeping people and their funds here sounds authoritarian.
Sure people say if you want luxury of staying liquid you can do so, but that doesn’t make sense. Why would anybody be interested in buying and keeping liquid steem when inflation dilutes the value of steem and doesn’t let them participate in the economy in a meaningful way.
Perhaps its time to give the options for people to set the parameters as they like. If security is the concern, increase the lock up time for savings.
I don’t think Steem continuing to play a central bank kind of role is beneficial. Anything that lowers the power of witnesses and gives more power to users regarding funds would make steem more attractive as an investment. Until then we/steem will be stuck in this semi-centralized/semi-decentralized limbo.
I've made this exact point repeatedly in various witness chats. It seems to me like a natural subject for the next fork post SMTs anyways. First to simplify things in the face of multiple new tokens that will otherwise be a mouthful for new users to wrap their heads around an already complicated platform. Second to judge whether or not inflation-derived rewards from stake-based voting should continue to exist on the main token once SMTs are here.
An ideal situation would look something like this: Steem Power and the STEEM savings account are both removed completely. You simply hold STEEM in your wallet. It can either be liquid (default) or locked for a specific time period. Carrying out actions that require the use of resource credits, or casting witness votes, will necessarily lock the required STEEM to be granted those resources, or the stake that you decide to support a witness with, for a given amount of time (to avoid abuse of resource credits by people who could otherwise swap STEEM from one account to another and take up the available bandwidth). Users can then also themselves lock their STEEM for any given amount of time specified by themselves as a means to add security.
This would simplify things by several orders of magnitude for any new user coming to Steem and wondering what they need to do in order to participate, and what is up with all these different names for basically the same token.. It would also allow for flexibility in terms of different users with a different wish for security versus liquidity being able to choose what they want without us needing to find a "middle ground" which in the end doesn't satisfy anyone.
Finally, we would not have this childish term "Steem Power", which may be cool for an SMT used in a gaming community, but isn't fit to describe the main resource powering an "enterprise-grade" blockchain.
Obviously, this requires a serious rework and a lot of discussions, which is why I believe it deserves its own fork rather than being lumped in with the long awaited SMT fork.
I like your ideas. I hope you will be able convince other witnesses. After SMTs Steem as a currency will have to take a different role to power the larger economy which may require better liquidity and flexibility for participants. I think Steem wallet is one of the best features of Steem, and removing SP would unleash its true power.
I agree with aggroed. But I am also a fan of a way to instantly power down + burn 5% as a fee to do so. Creates a sink, liquidity and is good for large investors who don’t want to be locked in a speculative asset with no way out for 13 weeks. I don’t like the idea of a 1 month power down as it does nothing for anyone. A month is still too long for a large investor to YOLO on(power up) and dosent satisfy a way to get out instantly.
That's a really interesting idea but doesn't change the fact that in case your account got hacked, with a shorter power down period the attacker could get a bigger portion of your STEEM before you would have the chance to change your keys.
Maybe 2 FA should be implemented in the long run.
Maybe there could be the option to determine save withdrawal addresses (white listed addresses)?
Also, wouldn't it be possible that every account holder had the option in his own account to either select a 4 or 13 week power down?
If the 5% fee were to be implemented, I am more inclined to support it, if it were opt-in based. And the opt-in effect should be delayed (2 weeks, 30 days?) in order to prevent someone who compromises an account to opt-in and automatically withdraw. As for the destination of the fee, I'd allow options, regarding the destination: @steem.dao, @null, maybe @steemalliance if they can take this kind of funding.
But on the long term, I prefer the solution @therealwolf proposes with differentiated interest benefits, based on the duration of committed power up. With the possibility to have different "deposits" with different interests, kinda like at the bank. That doesn't exclude the possibility of implementing both.
Both are not the kind of easy fixes Steemit expects, like changing "13" with "4". Both will require some work and some code auditing afterwards, especially since we are dealing with wallet code changes.
Anything is possible however if you take a look at the original post here, you will see that the change to 4 weeks is only being considered for the upcoming hardfork because the code change is trivial and low risk:
Of course it is possible to discuss any other sorts of changes such as configurable power down time, but not within the context of something that is feasible to deploy soon.
Yes, @steemitblog wrote it was easy to implement, but the reasoning for considering it is also that there was support for that idea within the community:
What I meant with "interesting idea" is the suggestion of @theycallmedan to burn a certain percentage of the STEEM always if anybody wants to initiate such a faster power down. So if one could fulfill the necessary security requirements (or if some people - I am not one of them - by their own choice optionally could accept a somewhat higher risk in exchange for a faster power down) that could be an interesting instrument to reduce the inflation of STEEM.
Thinking the idea to burn STEEM (whenever possible) is interesting doesn't mean I was supportiing the proposal for a shorter power down period (currentIy I am not).
Sorry, in case it wasn't clear I was answering the question in your last paragraph:
by pointing out that, yes, it is certainly possible, but not possible within the constraints set forth for the current hard fork. It would have to go into a future one, probably in six months to a year. For this one, the options under consideration are simply 4 weeks or 13 weeks.
Your other ideas (2FA, whitelists, etc.) are also very good ones which should be considered in the future.
I like the idea of white addresses to which I can get (this solves all security problems) speculators move the price in markets around the world, so we need them like air !!! 100%
I dont like the idea of a burn. I dont see any benefit for Steem to do that.
Burn means Steem is not a valuable resource, otherwise it would be a donation for instant powerdown to Steem DAO.
If you need to burn token the design of the token is bad.
One of the reasons for the high bitcoin price is its scarcity, whereas STEEM still has a rather high inflation. In my opinion burning some STEEM helps to curb the negative effect of inflation on the value of STEEM - at least for now.
dont get me wrong but with onboarding and more usecases we get the same effect in a more sexy way.
Steem is not Bitcoin.
If we remove current SBD from rewarding and make a Version like DAI out of it, we have the same effect beacause Steem get lockt up and less ( not control able) inflation.
And nice site effects like a real scalable 1$ pegged Coin on Steem.
I think things should be build for longterm and not for shortterm.
Instant powerdown or 4 weeks are only if opt in.
Like:
" You want a less secure account and 4 weeks Powerdown press here (owner key required)"
Same with Instant Powerdown with fee.
But i would say the fee goes to DAO. So if the price pump DAO gets more funds, or use it for account tokens for onboarding.
useless burns would change nothing.
Good idea!!! But the fee should better be 30% for the instant power down instead of 5%!
That burn feature is a nice idea. It seems like its a flavor of the HEX token's "emergency unstake" feature, but yeah, would be good to see that option.
I don't think either of those metrics is appreciably affected by the contemplated difference in powerdown time.
Again, the difference in powerdown time makes little difference. That there is a lockin at all probably is far more relevant.
A while back I made an error that enabled a hacker to swipe all my liquid. Had there been no lockin I certainly would have lost all my SP as well. This was revelatory to me, and has moderated my opinion, which was previously completely opposed to the lockin. I see it more as a security measure now LOL. This brings me to the fee for faster powerdowns. It seems to me the security aspect of the powerdown time is obviated by that potential, as hackers would certainly be willing to burn as necessary to make a quick cash grab. Therefore I do oppose that.
Beyond that, I reckon your judgment far superior to mine in this regard. I have far too often demonstrated my ignorance disagreeing with you =p
Thanks!
All of this. The answer is to change nothing about how this works now, because it is a security mechanism.
I agree with @aggroed. Also +5% burn for instant power down. But considering potential compromise from instant burn to powerdown as highlighted by @smooth, can we setup up a max cap for instant power down ? For instance maximum of 10%(TBD) of your SP can be instantly powered down with 5% burn with cool down time of 30 days for the next use thus if you want to use another instant powerdown you need to pass 30days from the last instant powerdown date.
Time to time people will need some urgency of liquid funds in their life regardless of how much they love about steem. Life is no guarantee. ;)
Agreed on almost all points. Even if we did want to change, the change should be much more conservative. From 13 to 10 weeks, for example.
Make incremental changes, observe results, and make further changes if necessary.
Ya, 4 is a big jump from 13.
"Part of what makes Steem a community is that people can't just up and leave". This is a good thing? So we will just keep other people's coins locked so they can't go? Why don't we increase it back to 104 weeks? Who cares about small users here on steemit when whales are the ones that are controlling everything.
Let the users decide if they want to stay or go. Create a better environment and they will definitely stay longer.
Its a good thing when people have consented to it. Know anything about certificates of deposit? Locking your USD gets you more USD, because it is good for other people. In Steem you agree to lock up your STEEM for "powers" and it benefits others because you do it. This is a consensual relationship, you agreed to have your STEEM locked up, so don't go around calling it an attack on free will.
But the thing is that people NEVER leave when the token is going up in value, at most they sell a small part of their stake.
People leave only when the price is going down, way down. And this bear market has proved that people still powerdown, it doesn't keep them in.
At the same time, we are not allowing investors to panic sell. I know it's counter intuitive but we want them to panic sell so that they get rid of most of their stake at the lowest price possible.
Removing the powerdown will allow us to take a big punch whenever price capitulation happens and then recover quickly.
However, with this powerdown in place, selling pressure remains throughout a bear market, and that's a big part of why Steem fell in ranking on coinmarketcap.
Let the weak hands leave quickly so that they get replaced by strong hands quickly.
What needs fixing is the price of steem more than anything else, so let's take this into consideration and make it an instant powerdown, or make it an option (in case someone still wants the security it provides).
You're wrong here. People do dump during a bull market, smart whales do. Imagine who this benefits most. It helps whales dump on the market and get out as price rises. This is not good for the little people that don't realize that their STEEM's value is about to plummet over night as a massive sell wall gets created. Giving whales this power will result in the inevitable death of Steem and leave poor people poorer.
Whales dump only part of their stake. If they dump everything, the coin will clearly stop going up in price.
That is one of the things we need to be cautious of. How can we know that certain whales are not pushing this 4 week shift because they want to dump everything and leave everyone else will greatly devalued STEEM? We wouldn't know until it was too late. 13 weeks on the other hand slows a whale's ability to dump all of their coins.
If they dump at this price then it's the best thing that could happen to steem. We are near all time lows.
"Part of what makes Steem a community is that people can't just up and leave."
You've created a prison, not a community.
"Came for the rewards, stayed for the,... wait.. no.. we're being held hostage."
lol
There you go!
Saying a 13 week power down is a "prison" is like calling a business contract a prison. People can't say they are being forced when they knew the terms to an agreement before hand and then agreed to participate.
You're on Steem, which means that you are a willing participant. No one is forcing you to be here, and no one is forcing you to write or curate on Steem. So, you have consented to the 13 week staking system because you decided you wanted to participate in the game mechanics of Steem.
Exactly.
People should be able to leave and stay as they please. You shouldn't force someone to wait 13 week just to leave the platform or even for legit business to get their earnings faster. If steem here to stay , time will tell. if not, this might just hasten the destruction of steem. Steem needs more value to attract more people using it.
I’d vote for the burn over a change to the actual power down schedule. Good idea @aggroed
Thumbs up to Instant power down for a fee. This is crypto and let's not try and be communists. Give people the right to choose to exit. This is fundamental.
Sorry I didn't realize you had already touched on this. I think a 10% burn fee to power down faster would be a good idea if they decided to move forward with this.
I agree... it also gives the larger share-holders the ability to negatively affect the value of Steem by powering down more rapidly.
That is what I think too
@aggroed if i want power but also be liquid i can lease Steem, where is the problem....
So i spend some Steem for a delagtion and big part can be liquid.
Easy wallet creation is a bigger problem. Because i dont care as a investor about power down, if i dont have a wallet right?
Strongly Agree. We feel that what is more important now is SMTs, launch them, and then promote them. SMTs are of great value. We visited a lot of community owners in China and they really wanted something like this. But at the same time, they need simpler settings and a better client experience.
I agree with your last ideas. We have to come up with something that creates value more than the bank does. Day by day my steam account value is decreasing. If some step do not took than soon my account will come in pennies.
People who really care about posting they must get the worth instead getting pennies. People who's videos is watched they are getting pennies. It not like Youtube that as much you watch that much promotion is done of your videos.
We have to come up with innovation and good ideas that creates the value of steem.
Regarding power down, I think those who want money they anyways going to get in 13 weeks or 4 weeks, they will do it. People who want to remain invested and grow they will remain. But how long, they also worth their money which is invested or earned hard way.
Few days back I have posted blog about how to increase Why STEEM Value Decreasing! Ideas to increase Steem Value steem and I got only nine votes and not a penny I earned. This shows nobody cares about steem value. Everybody wants money and saving their precious upvote and comments.
If something is not done soon than according to calculation after 20 days Steem value will be $0.01 and after 91 days steem dollar value will be $0.01.
I can help, let discuss ways and ideas and contribute to beat facebook and youtube. I am not against them but I am with people. Instead Facebook and Youtube earns let we people earn.
There are many ways to increase steem value. We can introduce Dai crypto in steem. And many more. Let discuss in Why STEEM Value Decreasing! Ideas to increase Steem Value
To listen to the audio version of this article click on the play image.
Brought to you by @tts. If you find it useful please consider upvoting this reply.
I believe that the most fun time using Steem/Steemit was during 2nd half of 2017 to 1st half of 2018. Especially in the Korean community, there were loads of famous people/bloggers moved to Steemit during this time. One of my Steemit posts was selected as top 3rd number of views, and it was pretty exciting seeing my Steemit article shared via a variety of platforms outside, attracting other bloggers joining Steemit.
The reason why this time was the most fun is NOT all about the price peak. It was all about the people. Don't get me wrong. I'm not talking about the royal people. It was the time when ALL KIND OF PEOPLE were gathering in Steemit such as royal Steemiana, bloggers, investors, gamblers, abusers, ... It was the most time when there were a huge amount of conflicts, fighting, argument, and so much more things were happening.
I strongly believe that attracting a large number of people who comes from all different backgrounds/needs should be the most important core rather than letting only royal people stay in this place. Why? It's so simple. It gives a fun, more value, more reason to be royal for some people, and more attractive reason to invest on my valuable money and time.
For this reason, I completely agree with the 4-weeks power down period.
p.s.: I invested over $40K my personal money on Steem, powering up, and never power down till now, and the money becomes less than $3K. People who need power down will do anyway regardless of the power down period limitation, and this SHOULDN'T be our core to maintain.
I completely agree with this proposal and reply of @project7 too.
agree 4 weeks power-domn ~gogo~
I completely agree to your opinion.
Posted using Partiko Android
Every change comes with a lot of indirect cost, this change isn't bringing clear and direct benefit. It's a zero sum change, it's not smart enough.
It was suggested that new reward from inflation should stay staked for longer, like 6 months, while purchased one get to power down as usual or faster. The main reason for previous 2 year or 13 weeks delay was so new users get to participate in curation and get to adapt to the ecosystem and the culture.
This is changing for sake of changing and expecting better outcome at random.
IMO it's a ridiculous distraction given the current state of Steem.
True. And change the rules ( like in computer games) have often horrible side effects that destroy a game.
I am AGAINST this proposal!
It would make sense to improve the savings feature BEFORE decreasing the Power Down time.
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
Why do people forget the main purposes of Steem Power?
Locking half of the rewards is one of those purposes. We ruined the STEEM price by shortening the powering down period. We promise users a profit from nowhere.
Users can simply buy STEEM, power up, upvote posts and earn rewards, then say goodbye. Does blockchain owe users something? NO.
No free money! You should give something in return for the MILKING reward pool.
Giving something means locking down your investment which gives VALUE to the STEEM that we milk.
Ok. Make power downs shorter and let's milk STEEM together. Aim for $0
Leave steem power up as is at 13 weeks. Make the savings bucket a quasi power up that gets stripped of delegation, witness and sps voting rights, but lets you vote content, and gives you resources. Leave the withdrawal at 3 days or make it instant, build clear warnings into the UI. That way, only the people who vest for 13 weeks get a say in how the show is run, get improved security. The pop tart traders can pop tart to their hearts content.
Not many use savings anyhow...
Terrible idea. One of the reasons we get to vote up/down and earn rewards is that it is essentially interest for staking. You're suggesting removing the time-locked requirement to obtain inflation, which makes no sense. The incentive to stake is NOT to have control over governance but to get a share of the inflation. Steem was designed as a sort of Certification of Deposit system, without the time-locked aspect, there is no justification in paying out inflation rewards to stakers.
You could place it in a lower tier for inflation payout. I think @therealwolf had suggested a multi-tier approach.
Only acceptable if reward from inflation was directly related to time-lock length. A 4 week powerdown is so short there is no justification in offering a reward pool at all.
Now, if Steemit Inc. wanted to do a hardfork that removed the reward pool for STEEM, and make STEEM exclusively about RCs, then yeah, I'd be down. Just make all inflation go toward witnesses and staked interest and increase interest rate by time-lock length and you have a nice design right there. Then the PoB reward system could be exclusive to SMTs.
That is a hardfork I could go for, but there is no justification for providing interest to people not locking their stake up for a good length of time. The whole design of STEEM was that inflation would be paid out to those increasing the value of STEEM, benefiting all parties including those owning circulating supply.
The 8% inflation is only justified if price goes up for circulating, which depends on those locking up supply.
Setting
@likwidas beneficiary let you to skip the power down entirely for a 1% fee.Since very few people use it, it could give us a rough idea of how much demand there is for faster power down.
This is true for the bloggers earning, but not true for the guy hodling 2M steem. It doesn't address the importance of liquidity in crypto if things are going down fast.
With 2m Steem you better sell over the course of 13 weeks otherwise you'll crash the price. Sad but benefits everyone.
50k, 10k even 1000 STEEM. Whatever someone's stake is, it might well be enough to be important to them.
There are some days when you could probably sell 2M STEEM or close to it without crashing the market, but they are rare. You definitely don't always need 13 weeks to do it, although sometimes even 13 weeks might not be long enough.
You don't find smaller fish paying to power down significantly for a very good reason – they need to use their funds. They are earning the token in order to leverage it, to turn it into something else – something usable. They are not investing those funds in order to vote more things up because they recognize their votes mean absolutely nothing in terms of value to others or themselves, so there's no significant benefit to powering up, they end up holding a lot of liquid STEEM/SBD, and then they either decide that they can sell it for another cryptocurrency they can buy something with or they hold it just as long as it takes for the perceived value to be worth selling off for something else.
Note that they can't do that second part and power up. It is directly antithetical to using the token to lock it in a box and keep you from using it.
In effect, the 13 week power down trickle is most devastating to the smaller holder. It provides them good reason to not invest in the platform, to not make use of what tiny amount of power their given, and keep themselves free to actually use token for trade.
The guy holding 2 million STEEM isn't earning a notable amount, percentagewise, from writing posts and posting pictures on the blockchain. He's a speculator. He may or may not even have an idea of what "value to a social media based blockchain" actually means. By observation, he probably doesn't, nor should he.
Effectively, a 13 week power down simply centralizes more power in the hands of whales and gives anyone smaller good reason not to invest and not to be involved. Which, not to put too fine a point on it, fits with the rest of the design.
This is why the bloggers that seek to earn STEEM need to also demand that the places they need to buy stuff from start to accept STEEM. If bloggers didn't dump on the exchanges the STEEM would likely be worth more and the bloggers would be getting richer due to this.
Additionally, if the businesses noticed that content producers want to spend STEEM with these businesses, the businesses might power up and grow their customer acquisition within the Steem community.
That's not their job. The job of a blogger is to write stuff that people want to read and try to get compensated for doing so. If a platform wants to be the choice of bloggers who want to get compensated, they need to provide compensation. Compensation that people can spend and get use of.
That is, after all, the ultimate point of compensation. Nobody works to get paid to stick that pay in a hole. They work to get paid to buy stuff. Since the only way to do that with STEEM is to dump it on doing exchange because nobody wants to take in exchange for something useful, that's what people do.
Neither businesses nor creators have any reason to go out of their way to enable STEEM when there are 10,000 alternatives (or even three) which do what they want it to do. Exchanges make it extremely easy to care very little about that core mechanic, and so both creators and businesses don't.
An entire community of creators on the Steem blockchain have been wanting, very publicly, to be able to spend their resources on useful crap for years. Everybody knows it. At no point has it ever been particularly easy and in fact remains an uphill battle because the obsession is for holding a token and not for actually using a token.
Putting it up on an exchange is effectively indistinguishable from spending it on anything else. If anything, it pushes down the actual value of the token because it will inevitably have to be exchanged in order to be useful. And yet, people such as yourself continue to demonize both exchanges and the people who want to get some good out of their work by using them.
That is a core problem with the Steem blockchain as an economic engine.
"That's not their job" is something a person not understanding money would say. A person smart about money is happy to make anything their job if it helps their bottom line.
The reason I said what I said is because while it is "not their job" it would benefit them and everyone on Steem.
The authors dumping is hurting the price, so much so is this true that @SBDpotato and @burnpost are two projects designed to reduce overall rewards going to authors, they siphon the value and send it to @null to fuck the authors over.
Authors could help themselves by urging local businesses to accept STEEM, but sure, I guess because "its not their job" they can just keep getting paid less STEEM valued at less USD.
Sir, I believe you deserve to know that you do not understand this stuff very well and should probably read more comments and write fewer ones.
Hi, three days ago I already left this comment:
"Hi, I am strongly against the reduction to 4 weeks!
The security would be severely compromised.
I only see disadvantages.
If you want your STEEMs available, store them as tradable tokens.
Thank you!"
Having seen today that the proposal to vote against the reduction ends after 35 days, I would like to tell you that I find it completely inadmissible that the proposal to vote for the reduction has 3 months more time.
The result will be doubted on this basis.
Please also allow 3 months from now on for the proposal to vote against the reduction.
Thank you!