Not a change. I created a withdraw route that sends 87.5% of it back to vesting, so the net power down rate is the same as before (actually slightly lower) and I'm not, at this time, taking advantage of the higher rate, nor do I have any specific plan to do so.
But I have reevaluated the situation and I'm keeping my options open at this point, especially given that many of the important concerns I and others expressed elsewhere in the comments to that same post and others on the topic (e.g. implementing the economic changes unnecessarily abruptly and not phasing them in, too many changes at once, bundling the economic changes with immature chainbase code, etc.) not having being addressed. Overall I am supportive of the path that was taken, so far, but we will have to see how things turn out.
Not a change. I created a withdraw route that sends 87.5% of it back to vesting, so the net power down rate is the same as before (actually slightly lower) and I'm not, at this time, taking advantage of the higher rate, nor do I have any specific plan to do so.
But I have reevaluated the situation and I'm keeping my options open at this point, especially given that many of the important concerns I and others expressed elsewhere in the comments to that same post and others on the topic (e.g. implementing the economic changes unnecessarily abruptly and not phasing them in, too many changes at once, bundling the economic changes with immature chainbase code, etc.) not having being addressed. Overall I am supportive of the path that was taken, so far, but we will have to see how things turn out.