You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Fixing a Problem in the Economics of Steemit

in #steemit8 years ago

It's not a cage and it's not using force if it's a voluntary agreement and no one is being imprisoned. Those analogies fail.

The purpose of the power down period is not just to keep people from cashing out. It's also (perhaps moreso) to encourage voters to vote in ways that promote the platform's long term interests instead of focusing exclusively on their own short term interests. i.e. Vote for the article that will attract users and raise the price of steem, instead of the article that will attract whale votes. Traders and investors who are not interested in voting on content have no need to ever even learn that steem power exists. They can remain exactly as liquid as they choose.

And you're right that someone who wants to get out will find a way. They can just sell their whole account. It happened with the steve-walscot (or something like that) account. So that's even less of a reason to worry about friction.

Sort:  

Wouldn't allocating 3% more to authors and witnesses achieve the same but keep the functionality of Steem Power? Steem Power has uses which aren't trivial.

@steemit Inc has stopped powering down. This indicates to me that 1.5% interest isn't negligible even for the richest Steemian.

@demotruk's comment on the 1.5% interest and its implications for Steem's economy should also be keep in mind when discussing this issue.

Also can we really revote with 1/13th of the Steem? This means payout period can be longer than 7 days? Or am I missing something else?

I hope the comment that you replied to made it clear that I'm not in favor of eliminating steem power?

As to reallocating the interest, the more I think about it, the more ambivalent I become. As far as I'm concerned, at best it's a low priority to make any changes at all to the block chain economics at this point. Steemit can already get revenue for development from reward splitting from HF17/18, so they don't need a separate development fund. The developers need to focus on improving the user interface and supporting entrepreneurs. The antifragility that comes with numerous entrepreneurs driving their own growth on the blockchain is where the explosive growth will come from.

Also can we really revote with 1/13th of the Steem? This means payout period can be longer than 7 days? Or am I missing something else?

Not sure about this. I seem to remember reading something that said that we lose our voting power at the beginning of the power-down week and we get the withdrawal at the end. If that's right, then we wouldn't be able to double vote because the steem power would be "offline" for 7 days - an entire payout cycle - before we could transfer it to someone else or power it up again. I can't find where I read that now, though, so I might be misremembering.

I understood you weren't in favor of eliminating Steem Power.

I also think as you said that it's not possible to vote twice with the same stake or 1/13 of it but it would be nice if this could be confirm.

if it's a voluntary agreement

An agreement that most people don't want to sign up for.

The purpose of the power down period is not just to keep people from cashing out.

Good because it doesn't.

It's also (perhaps moreso) to encourage voters to vote in ways that promote the platform's long term interests instead of focusing exclusively on their own short term interests. Vote for the article that will attract users and raise the price of steem, instead of the article that will attract whale votes

You assume that if we remove steem power people won't be invested long term anymore, this is where my analogy doesn't fail :-)

So that's even less of a reason to worry about friction.

I don't think that's what liberosist meant by friction. There is friction because the barrier to entry is high due to lock in period. The majority of users don't want to lock their money which means many users are excluded from participating.
Steem power also adds a lot of wallet complexity which is bad for mainstream adoption.

The majority of users don't want to lock their money which means many users are excluded from participating.

Authors don't need steem power to participate. Long and short term traders don't need steem power to participate.

If someone wants the privilege of voting to shape the nature of the content on the blockchain and the distribution of rewards, then I think it's fair and prudent for the content community to demand a demonstration of long term commitment to the platform. It's sort of like "proof of stake" at the content layer.

Possible compromises: Early withdrawal with penalty, distribute rewards as steem instead of steem power.

I know what you mean but i think the benefits of eliminating steem power outweight the benefits of keeping it.
It's also going to be more and more difficult to own a large piece of the pie as more users use steem and as the price increases, so the problem you mentionned is going to dissipate with time.

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.16
TRX 0.22
JST 0.032
BTC 95407.02
ETH 2631.30
SBD 3.15