#steemit

Steemit Power Down Proposal

PD Proposal.jpg

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

Comments · 81

@stefano.massari(75)· 2383d
I can't understand this powerdown proposal, is there an Italian translation of this proposal?
@bil.prag(76)· 2384d
please don't tell us nothing. as always. we love it.
@fantasycrypto(60)· 2384d
soooo.... are you guys just abandoning the real steem community??
@ambiguity(66)· 2388d
I think there are mixed feelings on the subject, as you all can see. I do not have the funds to buy Steem with fiat so I post and power up all I can of that Steem. My posts only get up to about .63 per post. Sometimes I get curated and will get some more with a bigger payout. Most of the time I get about 1 Steem to powerup from each post. To be honest, as a small account I see not a whole lot of incentive to do much but I do what I can and hope for the best. They say it takes money to make money and Steemit is a perfect example of that, in my opinion! I just try to have fun here and meet new people and make new friendships.
@tarekadam(67)· 2389d
The majority of users want to lower the lock down period to 4 weeks, so why doesn't Seemit respect that and make the change with the SMT hardfork since it has been said this would be a low risk change?

The suggested approach which I like can be developed than overtime but I don't agree with postponing the change to 4 weeks.
@bluerobo(70)· 2391d
There is no benefit in making it even more complicated to get a grasp on Steem. Just shorten it to 4 weeks and be done with it.

Posted using Partiko Android
@ayijufridar(73)· 2391d
I have never done a power down and tried to collect Steem power little by little for a long time. When many friends in the community power down, I persevere.

However, in the midst of an increasingly lower sound value, I often ask, why continue to increase power down if the sound value is low?

But so far I have persisted despite the head full of questions.
@wongbraling(68)· 2391d
I am have curioousity about two proposal that opposite each other, whos will leading and as "winner" ;)
@troll3838(44)· 2392d
why power down need 13 weeks
@troll3838(44)· 2392d
why power down need 13 weeks
@ivandsa(25)· 2392d
Image metaphor for inflation
@greenhouseradio(58)· 2392d
I support a powerdown of 4 weeks.
@paulag(74)· 2392d
I like this idea and I can see how you are trying to address the concerns of both sides. Nice proposal and has my backing.
@rakesh9015(17)· 2392d
Very important information
@lordbutterfly(80)· 2392d
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.
@atulk(18)· 2392d
intresting
@arcange(79)· 2392d
Congratulations @steemitblog! Your post was mentioned in the Steem Hit Parade in the following categories:
- Upvotes - Ranked 6 with 872 upvotes
- Comments - Ranked 1 with 148 comments
- Pending payout - Ranked 1 with $ 112,99
@artgirl(69)· 2392d
Yes yes, I think that's a good idea. If we choose on our own on how long the power down period should be on each of our account then that is how we become responsible for our own account. Whatever our choice may be as long as we still get maximum support when something happens then that's a better thing to do. Maybe also put a new FAQ where you say what we should expect if we choose so and so and what you can do to help if so and so. 😉
@januzeb(49)· 2392d
Resteemed it
@bil.prag(76)· 2392d
if it is technically not to complicated why not. now there is an option of 13 weeks and 4 weeks. why not implement the option to choose with a reward for those that choose longer period? also i like the idea to move this after the SMT

Posted using Partiko Android
@hermeticgenetics(38)· 2392d
That seems like too much control to give to the individual. Not to mention the confusion of time-variant %’s
@por500bolos(68)· 2392d
It seems like I'm failing to see any substantial or significant difference between a 13 weeks power down period or a 4 weeks power down period as for attracting authentic serious investors interested in Steem and its true potential.

However as for instant powerdowns, I can clearly foresee its eventual lusty handsomeness. Tsk Tsk
@anarchy999(62)· 2392d
Honestly, 1 month of lockup sounds fair. Mabey reduce the interest payment?
@bigram13(75)· 2392d
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.
@freddio(60)· 2392d
i agree. Its a bigger thing and not run anway. Longer thinking about it will not damage Steem.
@eastmael(69)· 2393d
Looks like a better proposal to me. I agree that the change should come after SMT HF.
@ddn688(67)· 2393d
Thus will really increase the circulation of steem, leading to low price. Are we not happy that steem is upto $0.21 today?
@actnearn(70)· 2393d
This is excellent proposal. And it should waite post SMT.
@mehta(77)· 2393d
I like this proposal because this is the current solution which can be implement. Otherwise i don't want this long powerdown period as a investor. I have already written a post on it https://steemit.com/steem/@mehta/re-feedback-wanted-4-week-power-down The new system is like our indian banking system, where we got higher interest/inflation rate if we put fiat money longer in bank say: 2 Years - 7.0% annually 365 days - 6.5% annually 200 days - 6.0% annually 100 days - 5.5% annually 30 days - 5.0% annually 15 days - 4.0% annually If we withdraw earlier then committed time of locking, we got according to our locking period - small penelty (say 0.5% annually).

I am completely agree with this practical solution provided by @steemit
@ssjsasha(74)· 2393d
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.
@cosmiccitadel(51)· 2393d
I can appreciate that trying to balance the economy of Steem can be a tricky issue. I like this proposal and think setting the minimum at five days would be fine.
@cryptonewz(51)· 2393d
Do whatever you think is good for steemit.. i will support you guy out.
@daveks(83)· 2393d
Someone had mentioned that it would make sense to have people choose your own power down timeframe. I like this idea. From instant to 13 weeks. With a disclaimer or warning about the risks of a quick power down vs a longer one. Personally I’m in it for the long term, so I’m good with 13 weeks!
@french-tech(61)· 2393d
Dear Steemit Team,

There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. Mark Twain

Why omitting to say that the number of voters is not balanced at all?
- HF Proposal: Vote to Reduce Power Down Period to 4 Weeks => 404 supporters
- HF Proposal: Vote AGAINST Reducing Power Down Period to 4 Weeks => 127 supporters
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 ;)
@kingsmind(73)· 2393d
we need to make the powerdown times smaller
@stovehustler(40)· 2393d
IM JUST TRYNA POWER UP LIKE SOME KAMEHAMEHA SH*T
@mattclarke(71)· 2393d
Time is money. We can choose the amount we power up; we should also be able to choose the duration. Our influence over the platform; witness and reward pool vote weight, resource credits, share of inflation; should all be based on how much STEEM we're staking and for how long we're staking it. I like where Vandeberg's head is at, but vests should = vests, and make it dynamic. Have a bonus vests pool.
@evolved08gsr(58)· 2393d
Resistance is futile.

Whatever will be will be. It was always going to play out like this.

GG Ned.
@davedickeyyall(79)· 2393d
20 million SP for..

17 million SP against..

Sounds like motion passed to me..
@revo(62)· 2393d
I like this idea. As long as it is implemented over all stake-weighted voting a la Bryan's post - https://steempeak.com/steemit/@bryan-imhoff/q58rcg
@themarkymark(81)· 2393d
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.
@steemitboard(66)· 2393d
Congratulations @steemitblog! You have completed the following achievement on the Steem blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :

Your post was the most commented on one day

_{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 STOP}

To support your work, I also upvoted your post!

Do not miss the last post from @steemitboard:

SteemitBoard Ranking update - A better rich list comparator
Vote for @Steemitboard as a witness to get one more award and increased upvotes!
@institutdpos(53)· 2393d
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.
@abitcoinskeptic(75)· 2393d
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.
@bluengel(71)· 2393d
let's together make more better 💙 happy ♥ tomorrow steem ♨ world forever !

Posted using Partiko Android
@jeff-kubitz(67)· 2393d
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
@smooth(74)· 2393d
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.
@geekgirl(80)· 2393d
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.
@neoxian(72)· 2393d
Thank you, this is a reasonable approach to the issue.
@steevc(80)· 2393d
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.
@oldtimer(76)· 2393d
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.
@soyunasantacruz(78)· 2393d
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.
@gtg(76)· 2393d
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.
@aggroed(80)· 2393d
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.
@nealmcspadden(74)· 2393d
This is a terrible idea.

We don't need to make voting mechanisms more complicated if you want any hope of "onboarding the masses."
@valued-customer(75)· 2393d
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!
@fsm-liquid(48)· 2393d
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.
@muscara(70)· 2393d
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.
@chekohler(76)· 2393d
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.
@gadrian(76)· 2393d
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.
@flemingfarm(81)· 2393d
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.
@hendrixixi(17)· 2393d
Hy
@whatsup(76)· 2393d
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
@theycallmedan(80)· 2393d
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.
@atma.love(71)· 2393d
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.
@bashadow(70)· 2393d
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.
@adeyemidrey(65)· 2393d
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.
@lichtblick(77)· 2393d
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 :-)
@vikisecrets(80)· 2393d
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.
@revisesociology(82)· 2393d
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?
@investinthefutur(71)· 2393d
@enjoykarma denkt du hast ein Vote durch @investinthefutur verdient! ----> Wer ist investinthefutur ?
@enjoykarma thinks you have earned a vote of @investinthefutur !----> Who is investinthefutur ?
@enjoykarma(60)· 2393d
..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
@benitrade(44)· 2393d
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.
@goldmatters(75)· 2393d
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 .
@mindtrap(75)· 2393d
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
@jrcornel(82)· 2393d
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.
@bryan-imhoff(69)· 2393d
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.
@acidyo(84)· 2393d
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
@meesterboom(81)· 2393d
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?
@tarazkp(86)· 2393d
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 :)
@ddrfr33k(71)· 2393d
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.