You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: (Very) Basic stuff Steem needs to fix: my personal list
"But several people have been and I guess are still thinking that long lockup is a good idea, as hard as that is to believe."
At first I also thought locking up Steem for three months is a good idea to keep the value of Steem, but after I have read this blog post (and some of the comments under it), I see that it is not. A shorter period (for example one week) would be better/good in my opinion. Some people think that even one week is long, and 48/72 hours would be good, like in the case of the EOS blockchain.
With the way content voting currently works, the shortest we could do would be one week. That is needed to prevent the exploit where you can vote, power down, then power up to another account and vote again (potentially even doing this more than once). So a change to one week would be easy, but a change to less than a week could only be done with other changes such as making payouts faster (shorter voting period)
Yes, I also mentioned in this comment that the payout time on the Steem blockchain is one week (7 days). I think that one week (7 days) for the power down period would be completely ideal, but the author of this blog post (@liberosist) calling it "the worst case scenario". I wonder how many Steem witness would agree with the one week (7 days) power down time?
Informally, there probably isn't a lot of support for one week but there may be sufficient support for making some reduction, maybe down to a month.
Personaly I would support the return to the initial 2 years power down time, because I think people with long term goals them should decide how to distribute inflation.
However the short-term investors are needed too.
So the solution could be to have two pools.
The second pool we could destribute to those who are keeping funds in safe ( locked for 3 days) and did not move it for 1 month.
The distribution between two pools could be vitnesses voting parameter.