scrobble.life
#steemdao

HF Proposal: Vote AGAINST Reducing Power Down Period to 4 Weeks

@thecryptodrive@thecryptodrive (70)2415d

image.png

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.)

Please can all top 20 witnesses who support this change kindly vote FOR or AGAINST. Backup witnesses, active stakeholders and community members are invited to vote as well.

Proposal Recipient Disclaimer: The proposal recipient will be @steem.dao, funds will be returned to the SPS pool, the purpose of the proposal is to achieve voting consensus either IN FAVOUR or AGAINST the 4 week powerdown change.

Beneficiary Disclaimer: This is a 100% 🔥Burnpost🔥!

Comments · 25

  • @votebetting(65)· 2394d

    @thecryptodrive You are currently leasing me sp via dlease at 11% apr I use it to fund my token which returning 20%apr fixed Feel free to drop me message or dm me on discord

  • @cryptonewz(51)· 2403d

    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.

  • @jekhy(7)· 2411d

    Thanks for the post.

  • @jaydih(72)· 2412d
  • @leprechaun(66)· 2412d

    When Steem was first started a power down took six months to complete. Why so long? Those who have Steem power have control over aspects of the platform. Moving to 13-weeks meant that those with weak hands (hot money) would come in and get out quickly.

    Maybe decisions are made for short term value to Steem at the expense of longer term value. Some large investors in Steem were upset with that change.

    Now it is going from thirteen to four. I would have liked to see a stable Steem dollar but I guess it is the wrong block chain for that.

  • @revisesociology(82)· 2413d

    Hey, cheers for putting this option of the table, I appreciate how balanced it is of you, given that I assume you're actually for reducing the PD proposal!

    Just wanted to say cheers anyway!

  • @captainklaus(66)· 2413d

    Shouldn't this be decided on dPoll before being put into a proposal? It feels like this is a bit of an abuse of the proposal system.

  • @angel33(39)· 2413d

    it is much needed

  • @allcapsonezero(64)· 2413d

    I am against this change and FOR opening discussions and coming up with the best solution to this complicated issue.

  • @arcange(79)· 2414d

    Congratulations @thecryptodrive! Your post was mentioned in the Steem Hit Parade in the following category:

    • Pending payout - Ranked 2 with $ 67,94
  • @crypto.piotr(65)· 2414d

    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

  • @ddn688(67)· 2414d

    This is going to increase the amount of are in circulation, causing the poor price of steem to become shitcoin

  • @steem-ua(64)· 2414d

    Hi @thecryptodrive!

    Your post was upvoted by @steem-ua, new Steem dApp, using UserAuthority for algorithmic post curation! Your UA account score is currently 8.400 which ranks you at #17 across all Steem accounts. Your rank has not changed in the last three days.

    In our last Algorithmic Curation Round, consisting of 81 contributions, your post is ranked at #4.

    Evaluation of your UA score:
    • Your follower network is great!
    • The readers appreciate your great work!
    • Try to work on user engagement: the more people that interact with you via the comments, the higher your UA score!

    Feel free to join our @steem-ua Discord server

  • @beerlover(65)· 2414d

    View or trade BEER.


    Hey @thecryptodrive, here is a little bit of BEER from @eii for you. Enjoy it!

    Learn how to earn FREE BEER each day by staking.

  • @eii(72)· 2414d

    I voted for your previous post: https://steempeak.com/witness/@thecryptodrive/vote-for-4-weeks-power-down-vote-for-thecryptodrive-witness

    But now you're saying the opposite. What caused this? !BEER

  • @joshman(74)· 2414d

    Why are we voting like this is a binary choice when there are possible solutions that cover both sides of the argument?

  • @onthewayout(62)· 2415d

    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.

  • @logiczombie(67)· 2415d

    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.

  • @azircon(79)· 2415d

    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.

  • @russia-btc(71)· 2415d

    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.

  • @chesatochi(73)· 2415d

    My gut feeling tell me this change will be approved.

  • @brianoflondon(77)· 2415d

    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?

  • @steemitboard(66)· 2415d

    Congratulations @thecryptodrive! You have completed the following achievement on the Steem blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :

    You received more than 20000 upvotes. Your next target is to reach 25000 upvotes.

    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

    Vote for @Steemitboard as a witness to get one more award and increased upvotes!
  • @forykw(71)· 2415d

    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.

  • @witnessnews(2)· 2415d

    This post has been resteemed by @witnessnews.

    Follow @witnessnews to keep up with active witness updates.