Hello Steemians, as of now, the proposal to lower the power down period to 4 weeks has 20 million Steem Power backing it, while the proposal not to lower the power down period has around 17 million Steem Power behind it.
Go Steem.DAO!
Before we get into the nitty gritty let’s take a moment to appreciate this cool use for the Steem.DAO. We think one of the best indicators of good design is when a tool doesn’t just serve the intended purpose well, but also serves unforeseen use cases. That’s also why we want to thank @thecryptodrive yet again for his innovative use of the Steem.DAO.
What these proposals demonstrate is that while there is clearly a lot of interest in modifying the power down aspect of Steem, there is no clear consensus on the nature of that change or the urgency, which is not say that this is a topic which should be ignored.
Alternative Approach
That’s why in today’s post we’d like to propose an alternative approach to this problem which we believe would satisfy those who support the proposed changes, while providing a more comprehensive, customizable, and long-term solution to the problem.
What we propose is giving account holders the ability to determine for themselves how long they would like to time lock their funds. The longer the user chooses to lock their funds, the more funds they get to claim from the token inflation which is allocated to Steem Power holders. While this might sound like an escalation from the relatively simple proposed change, we believe it is a superior and worthwhile solution.
Competing Goals
Community members will never agree on what the power down time should be because there are two competing design goals within it. Those that want a shorter power down time want to lower the barrier to entry to Steem, and those that want a longer power down time want to incentivize long term commitment to the ecosystem. Addressing both of these issues would significantly improve Steem’s ability to grow, but the current system cannot satisfy both requirements. Therefore a new system is required.
A Simple Proposal
The system we propose would enable the user to determine for themselves exactly how long they are willing to lock up their STEEM, and would reward them in direct proportion to that length of time. The longer the user chooses to lock up their Steem, the larger the percentage of the inflation they get.
Not a Design Proposal
This is not a comprehensive design proposal, and many questions still need to be answered. What should the minimum possible time lock be? The current economics of Voting Mana dictate that the shortest possible Steem Power time lock would be 5 days.
That means that a user who chooses this option could lose all of their stake in 5 days if hacked. Is that an acceptable risk? This also does not address what the bonus incentivize should be for those who time lock for longer periods of time or whether there should be a maximum time lock.
Post SMT Hardfork
While we believe this would be a superior change, it is sufficiently complex that in order to incorporate it into the SMT hardfork we would have to delay that project. For that reason, we would recommend waiting until after the SMT hardfork to begin work on this change.
Let us know in the comment section below what you think of our proposal!
The Steemit Team
The Interest from the Steem inflation is so small it offers no incentive to lock your Steem up for longer than the minimum - surely if we allow people to choose their own lock in time, everyone's just going to go for the minimum period?
No. It all depends on the right incentives. Would you be on Steem if you'd earn nothing? Most likely not.
Same goes for powering up. If there are no incentives, then people will go for the minimum required period, but given enough incentives, this is easily changed.
This is going to become a debate about how to weight the incentives for what period of lock-in isn't it?!?
Inevitable I guess!
That's not entirely true...
If let's say the minimum period were 5 days and for locking up SP for that minimum you receive no interest, then there's more interest to share for the rest of users.
If for 4 weeks it's, let's say 0.5%, then again it's less than currently 2% APR, so more for those who stake longer.
This way we can get to something like 5%? for locking stake to 6 months - 1 year?
These are not by all means exact calculations, nor can we have that at this stage.
By all probabilities this may be a dynamic interest rate, which will fluctuate based on how many people choose different staking plans. That's if we want to keep interest at 10% from total inflation, and I don't think that's under discussion.
5% APR, in crypto volatile world, on a inflationary coin... It's nothing. This proposal makes no sense to me.
Instead please allow users to power down quicker for a price of burning part of the tokens - I think this was already proposed by many users.
This is one of the dumbest ideas ive heard and coming from steemit.inc makes me feel that they really lack vision or the capacity to strategically think as to the effects of the change.
This literally does nothing.
Instant power down with burn is not mutually exclusive with progressive power up period. You can make the burn percentage fee scale with the stake duration. For example, 1 week stake has 1% burn fee, 2 week stake has 2% burn fee, etc. This punishes people that fails their long term commitment while still giving them option to exit instantly. The security aspect is discussion for another day though.
I voted for 4 weeks to disconnect - I do not change my opinion.
I'm interested in - how many accounts voted for 4 weeks and how many to leave as is?
It is very important
Does it really matter? It is a stake based procedure anyways...Stake does the talking...
PS. I know what you mean...
People do have a little influence, a tiny bit. Some whales care.
Perhaps its time we started to question the status quo in that regard and have some meaningful discussions about it?
Maybe there are some areas such as witness selection, and proposals for structural change, that would be far more beneficial for the growth of the platform, if a democratic system for making decisions was implemented?
Understandable, but the proposal on the original post will kill the dispute of ideal staking period once and for all so I personally think it's plain better than just a variable change to yet another arbitrary number.
We are not democracy. The number of accounts voting in favor of something doesn't matter.
Then why ask us? Let the whales choose what they want and vote for what they want - but we will stand aside and see how many more people will escape from the platform!
It's more than 2%. Some people never powered down. For them it's a long term commitment anyway.
^ That's me. I've never powered down. I'd probably go for 6-8 month power down because all my plans are super long term.
All this talk of APR ... we need to embrace the 2020 DEFI trend issued down by illuminati decree
lets make a no loose lottery with SBD and SP
https://cryptobriefing.com/defis-first-no-loss-lottery-raises-million-interest-accrues/
im high but i bet this can work on steem , mix it all together drink it in a big APR milkshake i got those eosio smart contracts and steem engine side contract hype, liquidity, volume, demand. DPOS
Proof ... of... Brain.. Power down your sanity
the wallet is you
I'm not sure I understand any of the concepts you mentioned. Dunno how you can make a no-loss lottery.
curation rewards are also a big incentive to hold some steem ....
Yes, especially since the last HF.
I wonder if its technically possible to scale the curation returns dependent on the time period you lock steem in for?
Hello Steemian
Source
Spamming comments is frowned upon by the community. Continued comment spamming may result in the account being Blacklisted.
More Information:
The Art of Commenting
You are right. Give me back a minimum 50% from my vote value and I will Power Up, even for 13 years
Lol, I looked up your SP. I thought I could perhaps vote "half" of your vote value on your comment to force you to power up for 13 years. But you have so much SP :O I can't.
Deferring it seems fine given lack of clear consensus, but I don't know that there would be clear consensus for the more complicated idea either (already in this thread there are some clear disagreements about how it might work and whether it is worth doing), so I would simply reduce this to "not going to implement right now" and leave the rest to further discussion.
This topic feels even more divided to me than the 50/50 debate. However, once we've got SMTs out of the way, I'm sure that we can get it done or rather Steemit Inc has capacities to truly implement a proposed solution.
steem will always be divided untill 1. steem prices go up 2. steemit inc steps in uses that steempower and throws some vote weight around, makes some dreams come true, changes some lives, has professional heart string pulling authors writing articles about steem everyday using this mascot
.png)
hey Im a rip off of Coindesk/Cointelegraph! Use me in your cartoony photoshop filter version of reality and paint a glossy image of steem everyday! Imagine the steem tribe we could create JUST for making news ABOUT crypto. Like Steemleo but no STEEM or LEO just CRYPTO. i bought the domain http://ChatCrypto.org and http://CryptoWars.org specifically for this purpose, to have some general overall crypto steem news sites.
Anyway what was the topic? steem power down? yeah man EOS is 3 days the whole thing feels much more like a bank like where people will put big money, steem needs some sort of SBD DEFI solution too .
We can get EOS SBDP on Newdex and Monaco card . I think SBDP on steem engine and newdex as a low supply EOS token would pump as, the SBD price on newdex couldnt drop too far as people could always generate new EOS SBDP from SBD, it will be fantastic. ive heard thats how steem pumped to $8 because SBD was such a low supply token lol i cant wait i need to buy so much steem to get ready i asked so many people to buy 100k STEEM at 10 cents, god, $10,000 got you 100,000 Stem, cant wait for $8 ATh even if BTC is even higher, steem will eventually be recognized when we just activate our army of incubating orcs , and unleash them onto the twitters. it has taken 3 years to grow the steem monster but its almost ready to become an akira like monster and absorb things, its already happening inside steem engine.
I am glad to see that The Steemit Team is not in favor of adding this to the SMT hard fork. Let the SMT hard fork stand alone. Your proposal would also allow time for people to think about what they want and what direction to take the shortened proposal. There is a lot for people to think about on this shortening of time than perhaps people realize.
Right now vested Steem (Steem Power) allows you to do everything, vote, curate, select witnesses. If a short power down cycle with all benefits is allowed there is nothing to prevent an agent of discord to come in with a lot of Steem, power it up, stack the witnesses for hard forks, or self vote, curate and run. So a lot of things need to be thought about in the sense of "how do we prevent???" scenario's.
Exactly what I’m thinking with the bad actors and not properly incentivizing long term behaviors, so I’d rather see all SP influence scale with lockup period rather than just earned interest. If theycallmedan chooses a year lockup and ranchorelaxo chooses 5 days... I do not want their votes having equal influence.
I just hope they, (steemit Dev team), are able to resist the tug-o-war of why wait do it now and try to add it into the SMT hard fork. SMT hard fork has been delayed enough, and with that the need/want/desire to change the withdrawal system may have other things to consider that have not been thought of yet.
THIS!
THIS!
!ENGAGE 23
@bashadow you have received
23 ENGAGEfrom @preparedwombat!View and trade the tokens on Steem Engine.
This is a terrible idea. Change for the sake of change is never good and it never works out well. This is the problem with all "republics" (we are a republic of money where dollars are votes).
Republics get so busy thinking about all the things they CAN change, that no one really stops to ask if you should change this. This is why new laws get passed every year as well and why year after year we are less free.
The steemit dao is just another republic and we need to be careful not to fall into the republic trap.
I admit, this idea is better than the previous 4 weeks proposal. But it still wants to change the drawdown period. There's not been a single person who could dent the price who has said to me. "Dale I'd hop in that steem pool and power up, if only it were a shorter period to draw down man!".
If you can bring some big time crypto investors onto a discussion panel who say the only reason they aren't invested in steem is the power down period but they would if it were only x weeks. Then you'll get my vote.
But the truth is no one is avoiding steem, not the people I know anyways. It's not avoidance, it's ignorance. Our job should be to educate them.
Anyone speculating on steem needs to buy steem. Anyone who's actually trying to build the community and the ecosystem, should be focused on powering up for as long as possible.
I implore you. Please stop looking to change fundamentals and focus more on dialing in what we've already got... Things like the API, need to really be expanded.
Out of your anecdotal experience, it is demonstrable that folks aware of Steem are indeed not piling on. Other than that, I pretty strongly agree with your comment.
Thanks!
Yes. Many people are avoiding Steem. You can see it in the statistics that the number of the daily active users on the Steem blockchain is constantly decreasing (dropping/falling) since months. Nowadays only about 31-32 000 accounts are active daily. And there are more than 1.3 million Steem accounts. The main reason is probably the low real human interactions. Nowadays people are posting around 29-39 000 posts per day, but the average number of comments is about 3. And most of these comments are bot and/or spam comments. The selfishness and the greed of the people is ruining the Steem blockchain.
It's not just selfishness and greed, it's also a poor UX and complicated sign-up process.
Cg
"... I am a new man, so to speak, like you, apparently free... But as you well know, appearances can be deceiving, which brings me back to the reason "why we are here"? We are not here, because we are free, we are here, because we are not free. There is no escaping reason, no denying purpose, because as we both know, without purpose, we would not exist." – Agent Smith, The Matrix Reloaded (2003).
Unless...
There is no purpose of living. ¡Living is the purpose!
I feel everything is being made more complicated, I would at least decrease it by two weeks to 10 just for easier math. Also compromise.
Interesting approach. I am for a instant power down for a 5-10% burn fee. (Agree with @Jrcornel response- with multi-factor identification and and white listed accounts etc... as protection against hacks) - is a instant power down even possible on Steem, or is 5 days the quickest?
I’ll think of this idea more and give a more detailed response on my thoughts.
Whatever the decision is I highly agree to postpone the change until after the SMT hardfork.
Instant power down is a security risk. If your account gets hacked the attacker can take 90-95% of your SP instantly and you lose everything.
The instant power down + burn fee could be optional. If you opt-in, you are sacrificing increased security for the ability to exit quickly.
Personally, if I had a second account that was whitelisted for me to withdraw to, an alt account (future could be a light account), for example, that would be fine for me. We can set it up so that anytime that whitelisted withdrawal address is changed, it takes a week before you can withdraw again. So even if my account was hacked, they could not instantly power down and send it to an exchange.
I'm not sure if we can have 2FA on withdrawals? If so, that would be another great feature to have, regardless of instant power down or not. Something like what ledger has, where you need to click ok on your physical device before the withdrawal goes through.
To be transparent, I feel these are changes I would like as an investor, and what other investors might like also. But, people do bring up good points to me how new people would want the instant power down, click on a scam link and get their account drained. And that would be terrible PR for Steem.
So I am not sold on the instant power down from an overall perspective. I do like to try and think of ways to get the cake and eat it too.
Instant powerdown could be an advanced setting for those who are aware of the associated risks.
What about @yabapmatt idea?
Could be this proposal an intermediate compromise between attract new investors and lesser down security risks?
Hm. Interesting idea. Could also work, but this would most likely require a bigger refactor than other options.
Yep! an interesting idea worth to throw a neuron or two on it right? :)
However, I can't see how this idea could likely require a bigger refactor than other options. I see it way more easy to implement than the many, multiple and diverse that have already been suggested throughout this post. Including those proposed by @steemitblog.
Do you care to elaborate where you see the 'bigger' difficulty?
It might not be that different actually. The logic around weekly powerdowns would have to be replaced with a lock-in for a certain period of time.
I would still make it opt-in based or with another security layer.
What if an account is compromised right after the lock-in period expires? Wouldn't that allow the person with access to the account to withdraw all SP at once (assuming all SP is unlocked)?
5 day is to prevent someone from an instant power down -> power up new account and double-triple-etc vote on the same post with the same stake.
That could be sorted. For example nobody can start a powedown procedure unless their VP is sitting at 95%+...
Although now that I think about it someone could technically do this since posts pay out after 7 days, hmm. Don't remember what the exact thought process was behind making undelegations 5 days but it was something about preventing "double votes" AFAIK.
VP regenerates in 5 days, the post payout window doesn't matter.
If you move forward with a "longer pays better" system then there must be a penalty for those who "promise" longer power ups but power down early. those penalties should then be added to the reward pool or burnt or wtv
this system would introduce a whole new level of complexity to the system which might not be something the community can handle right now...
Maybe they should be grateful power downs are no longer 104 weeks and just focus on marketing and speculation. Pumping the price will bring goodness all around.
I don't mind if the power down is shortened.
I don't see any reason to add a more complicated internal process instead of focusing on market awareness and usability.
This is more making changes to feel like a you did something.
I don't care if you do it, but there are other things that could make a bigger difference
Agree with this in terms of priorities. Although with the community going ahead with two polls on the issue (ironically spending more time debating it than has ever been done marketing Steem or people's content), it more or less forces Steemit Inc to give a thoughtful reply. So not sure I would make it sound like they made this change to "feel like they did something".
But we certainly need to come around to more important topics.
Okay, good point... they are just responding.
I'm not going to make a big deal out of it, because it isn't a big deal.
Edited to ask how this supports your stated number 1 goal of onboarding?
Given people the right amount of incentives for locking up their stake is critical. Right now, 13 weeks is a random number the devs came up with when reducing it from 2 years powerdown. There is absolutely no reason why we should keep this legacy approach around, which isn't catering to different individuals, but rather is forcing everyone to have the same mindset (power it up for 3 months or you won't be able to participate)
I've never heard anyone say on Twitter, Steem or elsewhere. They were going to buy Steem but the power down period is too long. I lean slightly towards shortening it would be a good thing.
As I've said... I don't mind shortening it, making it complicated is just what many on Steem like to do in the name of "incentives".
I also find it interesting I haven't seen anyone look at the data we currently have to help make the decision. For instance, how many accounts impacting x amount of Steem are in full powerdown. One could assume that anyone who isn't in full power down, doesn't want or need a faster power down. (historically, would be even better, so see if there is a running average)
No one has done any market research such as an internal and external poll to determine how many people have avoided powering up due to the power down period. Clearly that was an issue if you remember when we had 104 week power downs... and it was clear it was an issue.
My opinion this is internal guessing on making more changes, without much thought to feel like we are making improvements.
Tell me Wolf, would you have a goal of what percentage of Steem you would like to see powered up?
Currently.. 127,853,120 Liquid STEEM (37.747% of supply) About 62 percent, is powered up (I'm rounding) The highest I've ever seen is 72%... What would you see as optimum?
If you don't have a goal and aren't sure of the results you are trying to achieve.. It is like throwing a dart at a dart board blindly and hoping it hits.
But this doesnt do anything though. Those that were powered up will remain so, those that arent wont be.
Giving a choice when powering up as to how long you will be powered up means nothing.
The point was to increase steem mobility, liquidity etc. Not adding a pointless complicated process.
I think we agree, see my next comment.
Sounds reasonable to me. The more choices for the user the better. Also, maybe power down should have its own key to prevent potential hacks.
I'm not sure the power down period is our biggest obstacle to building the userbase. Most will not have enough Steem in the short term to worry too much about it. I know we need people who will invest serious amounts and we want them to stick around rather than power down as soon as the price shifts. The original power down was 2 years, so there must have been a good case for making it long. If there is a quicker option then there should be penalties involved.
I think if it's done this way it has to scale the number of vests on the platform too. This would really open us up to exchanges deciding to stake and vote for things like witnesses if it's 100% vested for just 1 day. If it's a 5 day withdrawal period that they select it should be 5/91 the total vests.
Thank you, this is a reasonable approach to the issue.
Sounds good, for the safety of the account owners funds I'd recommend the minimum to be 4 weeks but I wouldn't be against raising the maximum to more than 13 weeks with this new proposal. Will be interesting to see what others think about giving accounts settling for 6-12 months powerdowns the current max inflation though, I think they'd deem it unfair when they now are receiving max inflation at 13 weeks but it's definitely going to be an interesting discussion.
grabs popcorn
It shouldn't be possible for 13 weeks powerdown stake to earn the same priviliges/inflation as 6 months or 12 months. People should be able to increase their powerdown time though, even after its staked.
Oh yeah, I mean considering now they are already receiving max inflation they are going to be disappointed finding out they'll have to increase their powerdown time to get back to max inflation. Maybe something can be sorted where those with shorter powerdowns give their "missed out" inflation to those with longer so the 13 week one stays as is.
If they added this, it would be a sure way to keep investors away from STEEM.
You effectively increased the powerdown times for everyone across the board since the incentive is moved much further down the line.
If 13 weeks is too long right now and you earn max ROI at that point, by adding this change the 13 week SP would no longer earn max ROI . Some would just leave STEEM because in order to earn the same they would have to lock their SP for longer.
1,2,3,4,5 year powerup would earn more so if youre looking for ROI you pick the highest %ROI option.
This would be a sure way to kill STEEM since there are rarely any crypto investors willing to lock up their funds for so long while shorter powerup times are pointless.
Investors would just stay away even more so.
This is by far the worst idea made in this discussion.
There's also the idea to burn the "missed out" inflation from those with lower powerdowns though, guess it'll all need way more discussions and pros and cons so probably a good thing they are delaying it.
Grab the popcorn!
My primary consideration regarding utility of vesting is security, although that may be dismissed as due to my personal experience, and lack of interest in economic factors. I do not see more than a marginal benefit to security arising from extending the powerdown period. Certainly, I do not see that investing the resources requisite to effecting such changes as reasonable considering the extant market.
I reckon devs have more pressing concerns, as should we all. I agree with others that this post is a necessary reaction to misapprehending investment of nescient parties, and maintaining focus on existing development priorities should continue.
Thanks!
The Interest rate (currently 2.19%) is low enough that the potential liquidity is far more appealing. I am not sure 2.19% interest rate is a strong enough encouragement, especially giving how volatile the price is.
If it's not broken don't try to fix it.
In this whole debate, I never heard how many stupid moves and decisions this current setup prevented. Shorter power down will only benefit a couple of skilled speculators. Most people will succumb to emotions and lose steem and money.
I experienced this many times with other shitcoins. Locked steem in SP is always there and safe.
But that just me.
On PoW chains you can "invest" x money (burned by paying for hardware resources) to gain control over the network (51% attack)
On Steem you could do similar attempt by taking control over enough SP to vote for witnesses. Currently you have to risk value of your "investment" for 13 weeks. With 5 days, attacker (well, you can't even call him that way) can chose good moment (favorable market conditions, etc.) to take control over Steem platform with relatively low price and risk.
Keeping higher (current) lockout time for SP to be eligible for witness voting would solve that issue.
FTFY
Otherwise, I completely agree. This is an additional security issue that has heretofore not been well characterized.
Thanks!
In my envisioned implementation, the bonus VESTS for longer staking would be tracked separately and not be used for voting rights, just financial incentive.
I think @gtg's point is that the bonus VESTS should count toward voting, and maybe the penalty for shorter staking, at least when it comes to voting, should be quite high. (Not expressing my own view here, just pointing out how I read it.)
Either way, it is fairly trivial to implement. You either add the value or don't. It is not significant to the implementation, only the design. The design is in a very early stage (we are still focused on SMTs).
Vests should be vests.
Dear Steemit Team,
Why omitting to say that the number of voters is not balanced at all?
Another beautiful proof that on Steem only the one who has the most power really counts and that the rest is only a figuration of a semblance of democracy.
There are 1,361,763 accounts on STEEM of which 51,220 were active in January (source), there are 531 supporters (no, I didn't check to see if there were people who upvoted for both).
That mean: (531/51,220)*100 = 1,0367 % of all active accounts expressed themselves, congratulations, this is a great success.
As regards the alternative approach, I have nothing against it since there is no decision making in it but a transfer of the choice to the account holders.
Personally my position would have been more in favour of a delay impacted by the amount of the "Power Down", the bigger it is, the longer it takes. This favours small power down that have less impact on the trading markets than large ones ;)
I personally liked the idea of say a 10 week power down time frame with the ability to do an instant power down while paying a 10% fee (with multi-factor identification and/or white listed accounts etc... as protection against hacks)
Not quite sure how I feel about the current proposed option. It seems to add a lot of complexity to an already complex platform. The learning curve is steep on here and this would make it that much steeper. Need to think about it for a bit.
I think this is a very reasonable approach that should be given much more consideration. This isn't that crazy of an idea, and the burned steem could go back into the Reward Pool...
I think this is a good idea. But would you want these 10 percent to go back in the reward pool or for those tokens to be burned ? I think burning the tokens would be good to counter inflation. Because when there is a bear market it seems more people tend to power down, and that coupled with the inflation rate really hits hard on the value of Steem.
Yep, I agree. I would push for them to be burned. I am not sold on that 10% number but it would need to be high enough to counter someone voting 10 times, powering down instantly, powering up another account and voting 10 times etc and having it be economically beneficial to do so. The fee must be high enough to make that line of thinking uneconomical...
Yea it’s a bit tricky to figure out the exact percentage but nonetheless it’s a much easier and better solution then choosing how long you want to lock up your Steem
I don’t dislike this approach, but at the risk of adding complexity, I’d almost rather see it implemented across all facets of Steem Power influence. If you can scale interest earnings according to stake lockup, can the same formula be applied to vote weighting in the rewards pool, witness and DAO voting? To me, the SP interest is a negligible factor compared to these. Under a chosen lockup system there’s also the chance of large stakes exercising their voting powers in a short term profit fashion knowing they can exit their position in a week should things turn south, shuffle Steem to alternate accounts, etc. I think voting efficiency should be curtailed in line with SP interest reductions when choosing shorter lockup periods.
Yep. I think it needs to effect stake weighted voting as well. This might add complexity, but it would provide a strong(er) incentive to power up (while also protecting against nefarious moves by large stakeholders).
Ah, wouldnt there need to be an in-between point where it is possible to lock up some for a longer period, while keeping some available for short-term. Perhaps the barely used savings wallet could become the short term holding point with the combined steem between it and the SP being the voting power. This way the 5 day power down to lose all would only affect the savings wallet - it would need a name change :)
I think the Savings feature should definitely be improved where it's possible to choose how long a person can "Save" their funds.
AND
I think a person should be able to Power Up their funds as short or as long as they want but Voting for Witnesses & the #SteemDao should be reserved for people who Power Up for 13 weeks or more to prevent Exchanges from using their clients funds with no skin in the game to vote.
I agree the savings feature could be improved, but I disagree that extending the power down time would really affect exchanges that wanted to vote anyway.
Exchanges have to hold a lot of coins in cold wallet type setups while keeping some in the hot wallet for daily transactions. A large exchange could hold millions in SP while ensuring they have enough liquid on hand to handle the daily transactions. They could start a power down to increase their liquid, but if they have enough on hand, they can still power up, vote, etc while having enough to service their customers.
A simple way to analyze this is to look at extremes.
If there was a 1 second Power Down time exchanges would probably power everything up.
But if there was a 10 year Power Down time, they'd probably Power Up much less. So I don't think it is about the Power Down time not influencing them from Powering up but by how much.
P.S. I also didn't advocate for increasing the Power Down time but I want it to stay at 13 weeks.
I like the idea to bring the Savings account into the game at the same time. It's practically not used now.
Easiest would be perhaps two different account - one with a shorter and the other with a longer power down, with delegating SP from the long term to the "working" account.
Yes, but of the idea of communities and SMTs is about single account with flexibility. Thinking that there is a cost for accounts and a user comes in and then finds out they need to buy a second for security seems an unnecessary barrier. I would prefer simplification over complication, and that would likely be not looking into much of this at all and instead securing accounts in a better way, like 2fa.
This is exactly what I figured would happen. More debate on the changes are needed to come out with a satisfactory outcome.
There is no rush. Differing Power down times for.different users solves most problems.
Investors can still make great profits and curators can use this new info (stake time length) to evaluate content creators further.
Binary decisions aren't appropriate unless extremely popular 17~20 is too close for such a decision.
Agreed
Steem would have to become an NFT. There has to be a means of determining the timelock state of any given Steem at any point so being an NFT would allow for that. I am all for having a variable levels of "permissions" dependent upon the timelock status of an account's holdings. Those that are fully vested for the current timeframe would have full permissions and with each step down in time, (say 2 weeks) permissions would be lost such as voting for witnesses, DAO, etc.
While tempting I would much rather have the SMTs actually get finished and forked before the focus moves elsewhere.
It is actually very simple to implement this without making STEEM NFTs. Rather than time locking each satoshi STEEM, we allow an account to set a maturation date on their Steem Power. When the account powers up, bonus VESTS would be allocated as a function of how much STEEM is being powered up and how much time the account has left before the maturation date. The maturation could be increased at will for most bonus VESTS, but never decreased.
For those unware, VESTS are an internal tracker of claims against the Steem Power pool. An account's VESTS do not change over time. As STEEM from inflation is added to the pool, the value of 1 VESTS in STEEM increases so that when you withdraw it later, it is worth more. On the UI, we do this conversion for you and display Steem Power in STEEM, not VESTS, at the current value of VESTS to STEEM.
For users wanting multiple maturation dates, it is fairly simple to create multiple accounts with different maturation dates and delegate all of the Steem Power to one centralized account that is regularly used.
Love this ^
Would this be possible to work into the wallet so there could be a slider or two that govern just a pair, SP and Savings and the respective power down period? Make it simple but then the savings could have a variable rate as well as the main wallet/account? At least this would give 2 options for everyone and then if needed they could go into other accounts and delegation.
Steem Power is the variable rate savings account. The on chain "savings" account is simply a time locked account for security purposes only. A variable time lock on the savings account would seem rather doable. No promises though. Just my initial opinion on the technical difficulty of the change. All changes need to be discussed and weighed both in terms of importance and difficulty.
Unrelated, but I posed this same question to Andrew above...
Do you guys have anyone that fills out exchange applications on a consistent basis? Steem is starting to lag many of its peers in terms of exchange listings and if that doesn't change there is a real chance it gets left behind if/when there is another altseason...
I am looking at a list of the top exchanges by volume and steem is on very few of them...
If some exchanges require listing fees we could get the SPS/DAO to fund those, but I really think this should be made a priority for those not doing development work especially while we are still in a bear market as it will likely only get harder and more expensive if/when there is another full on bull market.
Do whatever you think is good for steemit.. i will support you guy out.
I am glad to read this rational consideration of this proposal. I am most gratified to see that you note it is best to not impede extant HF implementation by this additional complication.
I suggest that you include a link to the DAO for all of your posts concerning DAO proposals, to facilitate participation in the DAO.
Thanks!
Done! Great feedback
Do you guys have anyone that fills out exchange applications on a consistent basis? Steem is starting to lag many of its peers in terms of exchange listings and if that doesn't change there is a real chance it gets left behind if/when there is another altseason...
I am looking at a list of the top exchanges by volume and steem is on very few of them...
If some exchanges require listing fees we could get the SPS/DAO to fund those, but I really think this should be made a priority by those not doing development work, especially while we are still in a bear market as it will likely only get harder and more expensive if/when there is another full on bull market.
SMTSs first.
I have thought about the whole power down time change too and come to the conclusion, just let it be as it is.
Resteemed :-)
Terrible idea.
The point is to increase Steem liquidity on exchanges, give investors incentives to come in and to increase Steem mobility.
With this you do none of that.
If an investor wants to earn from the ecosystem they need to lock up for the max period which vast majority will not do.
Locking up for shorter time means a loss and is pointless.
What will end up happening is that investors will simply stay away.
We need more market participation by those that believe in Steem that would, in your case just power up for max time.
This literally adds nothing positive or changes behavior which we want to happen.
Probably the single worst idea ive heard regarding this change, sry.
I am against this proposal because it adds too much unnecessary complexity, reduce the power down time to x weeks (for example 4 weeks) or keep it as is. The Steem DAO voting shows that the community is leaning towards the 4 weeks reduction (20M vs 17M) however.
soooo.... are you guys just abandoning the real steem community??
Definitely a good idea to hold off until after the SMT hardfork. I like the idea of "locking in" SP to be eligible for inflation rewards. Perhaps like a CD at the bank? I don't know that I have exact details of how to implement it, but I like the concept.
I like the idea of progressive interest, based on the time the stake is locked up.
I also support the idea of revamping the Savings account.
We need to be careful not to introduce stability risks for the blockchain though, if accounts with a very short lock up period for the stake vote for witnesses and Steem proposals.
Talking more about this after SMT hardfork is safely deployed seems the only wise choice, given the extensive changes needed.
What controls do you think would be in place to prevent power down term changes? For example, a crafty user chooses a long time to get maximum benefit on the platform. The steem price pumps and they decide to change the power down time to 5 days to take advantage of the pump. It would kind of negate the whole thing.
Or would the control be such that it would effectively be the same as a long power down time to wait before allowing a change like this?
I think they're thinking of locking in the SP for a set duration, kind of like a CD at the bank. That's the way I conceptualize it. So if you locked in for 13 weeks, you'd have to wait for those 13 weeks to pass before you'd be able to power it down and cash out.
The only wild card would be how we handle new SP rewards (curation, author, and the like) Perhaps the 4 week turnaround time might for those might not be a bad idea...
I get you. It does seem to add complexity. One for the analysis sessions. I think it might be simpler to change the term to a fixed period. Although I personally would be in favour of choosing the lockup time. Tough call!
If I'm reading the post correctly you would be able to increase stake time but not decrease. To decrease you would have to power down and power back up.
That would work although I can already imagine the howls of anger from those that just want their stake to do with as they please as soon as they stamp their feet.
Great idea! 5 days sounds great. Everyone is responsible for their own investment and there is market risk and security risk in literally anything. We should be willing and responsible to set these parameters for ourselves .
..ya, not really easy question..cause every medal has two sides..but in my opinion it’s necessary and important to set the priorities on the whole steem story...it doesn’t help nobody, if it still hurt the value of steem or it’s not safe as it has to be..i, for my own, as being one of the last because poorest steemIan, could take my necessary of power down fastly behind the whole, because if I know the periods, I will make my decisions according to the rules...so, people, think about a little moment..do you want to get ‘rich’ fastly while having more risks to loose or do you want to relax, care also about the community and it’s needs, or better, care about quality content, getting more members, making steem safe and a few other important things...development is first, steem’s attrctivity and popularity should be the first reason to act..that’s from here from me, don’t know, if you agree...but meanwhile, think big, think about the whole, relax.. and enjoy..as I try to do..enjoy karma!...karma exists...steem on...and btw thank you team for the always great job you’re doing!...
!invest_vote
@enjoykarma denkt du hast ein Vote durch @investinthefutur verdient! ----> Wer ist investinthefutur ?
@enjoykarma thinks you have earned a vote of @investinthefutur !----> Who is investinthefutur ?
The fact that hackers aren't resting just to take a thousand years hard earn work of an individual, we really have to be careful in our decision on how long steempower could stay before it would be power down totally. If the 13 weeks interval is too long for users because of the current trend of inflation then I will suggest a month.
Agree with this. We're not currently a lucrative honeypot. Let's not become one.
I would be happy with your proposal, especially if locking in for longer increases return over current rate. I would probably lick in for one year or more. Or remaining with 13 weeks is ok for me.
Interesting compromise and I'm glad this will be kept separate from the SMT fork, let's not add too many variables into HFs. I know this will add another layer of complexity to your wallet but I do like the idea of turning a wallet into a savings account and setting your lock-up period and getting a larger ROI based on your lock-up period this is similar to both fiat and crypto interest-earning systems which people understand.
I still think perhaps a quick power-down should incur e free say 5% burn of tokens to secure your power down. It will require notification and I think even some sort fo 2FA or hackers could abuse it. It gives users the freedom to add liquidity to the market and do more with their stake.
Interesting proposal - let's see what others think about it.
Though I have to disagree about calling the length of the power down time a "barrier to entry to Steem" - it's one thing (among others) that potential investor will consider and it might lead to some of them not investing, but a barrier is not what I would call it.
This is a terrible idea.
We don't need to make voting mechanisms more complicated if you want any hope of "onboarding the masses."
There God I do not understand anything, I am just a red fish, but I ask those who know to take into account all the factors and not to rush into a decision.
If someone is interested in making a post on the subject that is understandable to the new fish, it will surely go very well. Thank you.
why power down need 13 weeks
That seems like too much control to give to the individual.
Not to mention the confusion of time-variant %’s
Congratulations @steemitblog! You have completed the following achievement on the Steem blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
You can view your badges on your Steem Board and compare to others on the Steem Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPTo support your work, I also upvoted your post!
Do not miss the last post from @steemitboard:
Vote for @Steemitboard as a witness to get one more award and increased upvotes!
I support a powerdown of 4 weeks.
I think it would be great. Giving people the option to choose for themselves would satisfy all parties involved.
Thoughts on what would be the longest SP time lock? something like 6 months to a year and after that the % of inflation remains the same maybe?
In any case I think it would be a step forward
Definitely still needs more discussions before coming up with final design but I strongly agree with the proposed foundation. The complexity of the new system can be abstracted via UI for users to work exactly like it is right now so that's not a problem.
Here's my thoughts after a real horrible experiment that lasted over a year. First, that steem was stable and except for few when the wallet was comprised in places like poloniex, it worked very well, the steem/SBD wallet. Now that the wallet is separate it works even better.
Second, I took my steem about oh 3500 or so and bought various cryptocurrencies with it. In the end, my purchases totalled 1.6 btc.
I had 0.2 of that in nicehash.com mining. When btc was at $16,000 nicehash was hacked my 0.2 btc was stolen. Inside poloniex and other exchanges, including coinbase almost every trade resulted in a loss. The amount of the original steem left is 1024 + 338 sp..
Conclusion: were steem to increase in price like it was, who would care about anything else because all you get is robbed!!!!!
On the one hand, I have enough of my original crypto purchases to become a dolphin in an instant because of low price of steem. On the other hand, if everyone powers down and the price is forced lower then all proposals are counterproductive.
People who want to power down should plan there power downs because if a power down is used for nothing but a get rich quick trading scheme the regular will probably lose it or have it hacked anyway. Like I did.
The best solution is to do every last thing to make steem worth more in price!!! More secure!!! Security is everything in crypto. The lengthy power down time makes the wallet more secure - then a long power down time is good
let's together make more better 💙 happy ♥ tomorrow steem ♨ world forever !
Posted using Partiko Android
Thanks for the input. Especially for measuring the intent of the community around this proposal even after the vote. It's shows some maturity in growing our governance model.
I support the alternative approach that let users choose themself how long they want to lock their SP. I also support the idea of not including it to the upcoming SMT hardfork.