HF Proposal: Vote AGAINST Reducing Power Down Period to 4 Weeks
pixabay.com image
Please note there are now two proposals issued to enable the community to either vote IN FAVOUR or AGAINST the idea of a 4 week Power Down period reduction.
Vote this proposal if you are "AGAINST" reducing the Power Down period to 4 weeks.
Voting platforms:
https://steemitwallet.com/proposals
https://steempeak.com/proposals
https://steemproposals.com/proposal/71
If you are "IN FAVOUR" of the 4 week Power Down change then visit the ORIGINAL PROPOSAL
Be sure to read discussions on both proposal posts in order to make an informed decision and feel free to contribute towards the discussion.
Check the latest Steemitblog post for additional discussion.
Excerpt from Original proposal
This is a consensus proposal to allow witnesses and stakeholders to vote on this change being implemented in the next HF, thereby recording their approval on-chain.
The proposed change is to reduce the current 13-week power down schedule to 4 weeks. The reason for selecting 4 weeks was to still provide some lockup protection within the 30-day account recovery period.
There was talk about having different power down schedules for earned vs invested SP but that would be a much more complex code change and additional cognitive load for the user, therefore this proposal is simply for a reduction to 4 weeks and nothing else.
The changes will likely involve code to first halt all current power downs in progress and change the parameter from 13 to 4 weeks.
The premise behind this change is to reduce the barrier to entry for investment into Steem and PoB SMT's, currently it is daunting for investors to lock-up their capital for 13 weeks. While 4 weeks is still high compared to other chains like EOS, it is a positive incremental iteration in the right direction, with low risk of market sell-off. It can be further reduced in a future hardfork if proven to not have adverse market effects.
Implementation: This is likely a small code change that can be done by Steemit Inc., community developers are of course entitled to submit PR's to the public repo for these changes or submit a proposal to be remunerated for the same.
There was also a discussion about adding an instant power down by burning 5-10% of the stake, that may be more expensive to code and perhaps should not be considered for this HF, but if still desired should be voted on via a separate proposal. (EDIT: This has been found to be very dangerous, a hacked account could be instantly drained via this burn mechanism and therefor circumvents any lockup period safety benefits.)
I am voting for this proposal not because I am against reducing the powerdown period to 4 weeks but because I am against including it in the SMT hardfork. This needs further discussion to build real consensus and it also requires to view other alternatives such as having multiple options for vesting e.g. longer divesting periods for witness voting, voting on proposals etc.
Also there is an option on the table to use the savings account to participate in the reward allocation but not on the consensus voting.
Any idea when SMT hardfork will take place @onthewayout?
We've been hearing about SMT's for a really long time now... I hope to one day witness them.
No clue, several people are doing tests and uncovering bugs. I am guessing it would be ready in 1 or 2 months maybe.
Hi again @onthewayout
Can I ask you for little favour? I joined contest called "Community of the week" with project I manage and I would be grateful if you could RESTEEM it and help me get some exposure and drop some encouraging comment :)
Link to my post: on steemit or on steempeak
Thanks :)
Yours, Piotr
This is going to increase the amount of are in circulation, causing the poor price of steem to become shitcoin
I like, especialy the instant power down with burn. That would make things attractive. But to protect users I would think best the instant to not be so instant... and kind of take a few hours and be exponential with a complex process to be sure the owner is really powering down.
I would like accounts to be able to set either one (4 week) or the usual 13 weeks. This would allow accouts to suit different purpouses.
@therealwolf was talking about higher rewards set to longer stakes, which I think is an awesome addition to this concept.
I also like that idea. Alighed with longer rewards I would also think nice if locked stakes exist. To allow for better deals and rewards along with programed safety.
Maybe instant power down could involve a burn and active authentication by some other multisig account you specify.
I don't want any of my STEEM burnt up thank you!!!!
Thats a good example.
I like your suggestion @forykw
Dear @thecryptodrive
I value your work on Steem a lot and it's difficult for me to be against your proposal. However i really don't see much benefits and at the same time I'm worried about negative impact of this change.
Perhaps sometime in the future this proposal would make more sense. However right now it would speed up powering down of all those, who are currently moving away from steem blockchain. Speeding up their power downs would end up with tons of steem being rapidly sold and bringing price again to all time lows.
I really don't think it's a right time for such a move. Perhaps if steem price would recover partly. But I don't see a reason to do it now.
Yours, Piotr
Sure that is no problem, this is a democracy so vote for whichever one is right for you. I am very pleased however that we have established a standard for democratic voting using the Steem dao. It is a great platform for the community to join together and discuss economic and development improvement ideas.
The idea to shorten the trip period is wonderful - I hope that in the future we will reduce it to at least 1 week!
The idea of an instant exit with 5% burning is like a robbery - or get out of prison for a bribe (this should not be realized under any circumstances)
I am sure that a decrease to 4 weeks will not bring negative consequences / @aggroed suggested waiting 6-10 months with changes (this is most likely correct), but I am afraid that then there will be no suitable time for changes. Changes must be made while the market is stable - during strong volatility, I would not lower the shutdown threshold. Now is a very opportune moment.
Hi @russia-btc
Reduce it to 1 week? So why would we need powering up at all?
Im very much against this idea. Especially now. Steem price is very low and we want to 'kill it'? Imagine if all people powering down now, would have all their liquid steem ready to be sold right away. That would absolutely crash the price.
Yours, piotr
Hey. The SP should be able to shut down immediately if it is turned on for at least 13 weeks. this is enough to get acquainted with the platform. no one will sell now - the price is very low.
If you are a beginner and have ended 13 weeks, you can exit at any time, or you can extend the blocking period and the longer your blocking period, the more privileges you have on the platform - or you are ready for an instant exit but lose many privileges - how do you like this idea?
It's me again @russia-btc
I've just realized that I never actually thanked you for your comment. Big thx.
ps.
I would need to ask you for little favour. Recently I've decided to join small contest called "Community of the week" and I desribed our project.hope hive/community. Would you mind helping me out and RESTEEM this post - just to get some extra exposure? Your valuable comment would be also appreciated.
Link to my post: on steemit or on steempeak
Thanks :)
Yours, Piotr
There was no different at all if they change it to 4 week or 13 week powerdown.. Still steem market are dropping down. Whatever you say is not worth at all. See what happen when whales dumping this steem. Whatever change has being made still bring no effect at all. About hacker.. It still the same for me. What place is safe from hacker? So i dont care at all if it 4 or 13 week pd. Just make it fast. Too much trashtalk is not good either.
I am unclear; what "against"4-week PD means. As far as I am concerned there is no unique solution or consensus against. To me this is confusing. People already expressed their opinion on the comments :
https://steemit.com/steem/@steemitblog/feedback-wanted-4-week-power-down
Why we need another proposal?
Again, to be clear I support the current system of 13-week PD as is, no change. Why are we wasting development energy on this. Let us work on many other things that we need to fix, like the front end, stability, on-boarding etc.
Against means no change to the power down time (13 weeks)
Then you should vote for the AGAINST proposal
Ah why not split it from twelve and 4 to like 7 or 8. Compromise people. We are not like congress
Because there is already a “FOR” proposal where stakeholders expressed how they feel about it.
Now “Against” proposal to show the comparison between the two, and to get a better picture where stakeholders stand.
Understood! What is unclear is why the choice is binary?
Also the result of the outcome could be questionable as one proposal is older than other and people feel the burnout. I do, as I get the feeling of lot of “pushing agenda”.
The choice is binary at this time because the developers have said they are considering the change to 4 weeks it is a simple paramater change. None of the other ideas discussed are in that category.
They can be discussed further and potentially polled later.
You are right, it isn't 100% reliable. It is also non-binding. People (developers, witnesses, and stakeholders) will have to use some judgment in interpreting the results.
(Reply was posted by @smooth; I used the wrong window. All rewards on this comment will be burned by the @burnpost bot)
Great minds...
The FOR proposal doesn’t reflect true participation because those who are against would not have voted in which case there is no way of knowing if they were neutral or against or simply not engaged. I was asked to put this proposal together to capture more data.
@joshman this covers your question, also for this HF we don’t have the luxury of complex solutions other than a simple number tweak from 13 to 4, to reduce technical overhead. So our only options until another HF maybe a year away is either 13 or 4.
So I'll vote for not throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks. Thanks.
I have posed this question elsewhere:
What sort of speculation in steem will a four week powerdown enable that a thirteen week will not? Furthermore, how will anything beyond an instantaneous powerdown enable any speculation or liquidity at all?
Josh, I am glad you ask this question. This discussion is so convoluted that I can't wrap my head around it. But I will try and ask the right questions again. I appreciate that there are lot of educated people here with substantial knowledge of not only blockchain, but general knowledge about how capital markets function. So I am confused out of respect, and I am not mocking.
I am hearing the word "speculation" a lot. I am assuming people are using the word in a sense of financial terminology. As far as I know it is defined as such: investment in stocks, property, or other ventures in the hope of gain but with the risk of loss
I am very confused, do we want speculators in steem or we do not? I do not know how many of you actually speculate or did any kind of speculation in their professional life, but I do speculation for a living, and have done it all my life. To me it makes no difference what so ever, whether steem has a 4 week PD or a 13 week PD. Makes absolutely no difference at all.
Also I don't know if you are familiar with Venture Capital lock down period, Company stock purchase lock down period, Employee stock option lock down period, or standard IPO lock down period. All these things I mentioned are considered standard financial instruments, and they all have 3 months to 1+ year lock down on cumulative capital measured in hundreds of million USD to several billion USD. Just for reference Steem's market cap in under 60 million USD. What is hell are we talking about here?! That is less than the daily trading volume at Goldman Sachs product desk for Sigma X(which is 69 million USD average, Dec 2019 data). Seriously why this is even a discussion topic?
https://www.goldmansachs.com/what-we-do/securities/gset/equities/liquidity-access/sigma-x-us-monthly.pdf
You're not here to provide market liquidity, and I would argue that most people that bother to power up for any time frame are not either. They are expecting that there will be a meaningful change in sell side liquidity should the lock down period decrease by that margin. While I'm certain it may add something to the liquidity, I don't think it will be meaningful unless the lock down period is zero (which we know is untenable).
What about not burning steem and actually voting authors to add liquidity? I'm not sure if the act of burning supply is compatible with trying to increase liquidity. I suspect some people here are trying to have their cake and eat it to.
Because they(Steemit) believe this change to 4-week power down by itself is simple enough to be implemented in the next SMTs hardfork. Anything more will require its own discussion, development, and hardfork.
Original proposal received a lot of support, but now many expressing opposing views. That’s why I think they want to know if this is really what majority stakeholders/community want.
This is my understanding.
Alright... Alright!!
I will vote! Geez! :) You people!
No body voted for that thing yet! Great I will be the first to vote!
There are votes but they don't show up until the proposal goes live, which I think was set for January 25. Check back in several hours.
(Reply was posted by @smooth; I used the wrong window. All rewards on this comment will be burned by the @burnpost bot)
No, don’t. Vote for FOR, not AGAINST. :)
Why would you want your funds hold hostage for 13 weeks. I think 4 week pd is better.
Because I want to burn my money :)
They don´t understand DAOs, the decision was already made! Those people uncomfortable with 13 Weeks already exited and have no Power left to back their claim. It is a pseudo decision --> biased towards people comfortable with holding. If those proposals are designed to please bag holders...fine. If we really want to leverage the "wisdom of the crowd" (if there is any), we should read some articles by Buterin, Merkle and other folks about what a DAO actually is. The inner German Wall was designed to hold people in the country but at the same time was the biggest incentive for people to leave at every opportunity. On the other hand VC funds have lock-ups of 10 years - industry standard...There is a point in having long investor lockups... However, I wish the whales and the community the best luck to make the right decision. Probably not everything should be polled, and if there is a poll it should be without those statistical-text-book flaws. A poll like this should not be accepted because it is potentially harmfull.
I believe this is a bad idea (4 week power-down).
The whole point of powering-up-your-steem is to take it out of circulation and stabilize the economy.
The longer you keep it powered-up, the more effectively it serves its purpose (13 weeks seems reasonable).
It also serves as a type of LOYALTY OATH.
A better "update" would be to give people the option to PERMANENTLY power-up-their-steem!!!
That way we could all stop hearing about the BURNPOSTS.
it seem that we're on the same page @logiczombie
imagine all those people powering down to sell - if they would get all that liquid steem and dump it on the market. I would expect huge selling pressure, pushing STEEM to all time lows :/
Maybe this proposal make some sense, but consequences can be painful.
Cheers
Piotr
People wanting to power down will do so anyways, whether 4 weeks or 13 weeks. I don't think people will go rushing to the exists and tank the price if they drop it to 4 weeks, but I am also against changing it for the sake of changing it.
It's looking pretty bleak at the moment,
IMAGE SOURCE
I'm relatively new here so forgive the naive tone of this question, just because it is simple I don't mean it flippantly, I really would like to know if anyone knows real data.
How many accounts and how must Steem have been saved from malicious actors by the lock down? Ballpark?
Nobody is there to save me if I post my bitcoin passphrase on line, why is a safety net needed here?
It's not designed with the safety of the user in mind. It's designed for the strength and stability of the Steem economy. Among many things, it protects against actions such as pump and dump and other similar fraudulent strategies. If you want details on the specific thoughts that went into this decision, check out the Steem Whitepaper, specifically the Steem Power section.
The essence is captured in the first three paragraphs, so I will quote them below:
My gut feeling tell me this change will be approved.
Hi @chesatochi
That would mean sudden STEEM price crash. imagine all those people powering down to sell - if they would get all that liquid steem and dump it on the market. I would expect huge selling pressure, pushing STEEM to all time lows :/
Maybe this proposal make some sense, but consequences can be painful.
Cheers
Piotr
Back in 2016 we changed the power down time from 2 years to 13 weeks. There were MANY early miners and early high earning authors powering down. It didn't crash the market one bit. In fact as I recall even before the first 13 weeks were up, the market stabilized and started to recover.
The thing is, shortening the power down period does let people power down and sell quickly, but it also removes the overhang of future selling for an extended period. The later can make buying in more attractive.
It would get rid of the weak hands faster!!