#steemdao

HF Proposal: Vote to Reduce Power Down Period to 4 Weeks

@thecryptodrive@thecryptodrive (70)2494d

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 "IN FAVOUR" of reducing the Power Down period to 4 weeks.

Voting platforms:

https://steemitwallet.com/proposals https://steempeak.com/proposals https://steemproposals.com/proposal/53

If you are "AGAINST" the 4 week Power Down change then visit the COUNTER 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 · 56

@trieuvinhkim(56)· 2406d
Supports your opinion
@binkyprod(70)· 2409d
Definitely in favour. When you Power Down, that Steem is then somewhere and nowhere and anything can happen during that time. If anything were to happen and you were to lose that Steem, the longer it's in that limbo place, the higher chances of losing that Steem. I get that it would incetivise people to keep that Steem as Steem Power, but some people need that Steem, either for purchases on the Steem blockchain, or because it's their income. Reduced power down time means increased security of actually getting that Steem as Steem at the end of that fourth week.
@kingscrown(82)· 2410d
i like this
@brianoflondon(77)· 2410d
I'm relatively new here so forgive the naive tone of this question.

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?
@birdinc(60)· 2412d
3 months, 4 weeks or instant. It doesn't matter and will not make a difference re: attracting new users / investment.
@artgirl(69)· 2424d
So is this proposal still good even after the edit statement related to hacking? 🤔 Is that a minor thing?

Posted using Partiko Android
@crypto.piotr(65)· 2455d
Hi @thecryptodrive

I've decided to check out your profile to see if you posted anything interesting lately. And I was wondering - why you're so quiet?

Hope you didn't give up on Steemit yet. Yours, Piotr
@balte(71)· 2467d
You are delegating to an account @mmmmkkkk311 who is downvoting me for nothing! So I will downvote your posts of course! Best regards!
@abitcoinskeptic(75)· 2476d
I notice STEEM POWER hovers around 60 to 70% of stotal Steem. This means 30~40% is liquid. That is enough in my opinion and I am not aware of any shortage. Who knows if cha ging this ratio to be lower (more sp) is good?

More people are already powering down than powering up on a daily basis recently. I don't know if this is good or bad. Changing dyanics to encourage further power ups may also encourage further power downs.

SP is used for important things like sps voting rewards and witnesses, allowing exchanges to swoop in and 'experiment' for a 4 week delay instead of a 13 week delay may be a death blow because it will allow quick and potentially devestating attacks..

Changing the powerdown from 1/4 a year to 1/13 a year seems like too much risk for too little rewards.

Moving inflation from just holding sp over to the 3 days saving bank may be a safer option. Can profit from this withoutntoo much influemce and reduction in liquidity. option.
@crypto.piotr(65)· 2476d
Dear @thecryptodrive

There was also a discussion about adding an instant power down by burning 5-10% of the stake

From user point of view that would be TRAGIC. Powering up means locking your resources for some period of time. Mostly for security reasons (at least that's point of view of a user).

After all even if 3rd party would find a way to sign in with my active or master key, then I don't have to worry that my funds will be completely removed from the account. I have 7 days to notice that power down started and I've 7 days to react.

If instant power down would be available, then my believe that funds on my steem account are safe would be forever gone.

Just like you said:

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

Yours, Piotr
@crypto.piotr(65)· 2476d
Dear @thecryptodrive

Any clue where of 13 weeks power down came from in the first place? there must be a reason why it's 13, not 4. Just curious

Yours Piotr
@wongbraling(68)· 2480d
Thats an interesting idea. But what will affect the price of steaks? because the time to draw 'deposit' steem power was made short which previously was 13 weeks to 4 weeks. Indeed, for a personal scale like me, it can be profitable. But what about the impact on the big scale steak? By the way, I aggree about reduce power down period to 4 weeks :)
@demotruk(75)· 2481d
I'm sorry to the witnesses whom I've supported for a long time but I can't keep voting for you guys if you support this proposal. To me removing the long term commitment aspect of Steem Power would be the antithesis of what Steem is about.
@matt-a(66)· 2482d
Ahh, so close to success! I just voted with the @agoric.systems voting proxy. Looks like you're just 300k SP shy of success! Just resteemed, as well. I'd love to see this happen and as @smooth was say, I echo the sentiment "I'm all down for even 1 week." So glad it isn't YEARS like it was in the beginning haha.

Another idea I liked that someone was tossing around (I forget who it was, maybe @theycallmedan?) was maybe the possibility to opt to go an immediate powerdown at an expense. The expense being, say, burning 5% or 10% of the stake being powered down for an immediate liquid position. That might be steep, I don't know, but I like the idea of having that as an option a lot.
@proxy.token(55)· 2484d
We @proxy.token and KR community actively support your proposal ! Actually we want shorter powerdown period, but the four weeks you suggest could be the first step of that.

Thank you so much for your proposal, @thecrytodrive !!
@joeypark(72)· 2490d
I absolutely agree with you!
@project7(67)· 2490d
Agreed and voted from Steemhunt! Thanks for the great proposal.
@crypto.piotr(65)· 2491d
Hello dear friend @thecryptodrive.

I have noticed that each tribe has the possibility to configure its shutdown time, as well as the period for the payout and the distribution of the reward percentage.

User reactions and opinions in this regard should be considered and taken into account, for modifications that may be included in the next HF.

A decrease in shutdown time is necessary. In fact, it is a clamor of users for a long time. Then, the opinion of the users should be taken into account.

A strong investor always wants to feel control over their assets. Having his resources dammed for a period of 13 weeks is not attractive to anyone. Then we will find negative reactions and rejection.

Large crypto investors are looking forward to market behavior and enjoy the flexibility of moving their funds at a given time.

The "hacking protection" speech is over. The possibility that users can withdraw their assets should not cause negative effects on the price of the currency, on the contrary, this would encourage investment, since very few are willing to compromise their assets for the absurd period of 13 weeks. Those who trust the blockchain steem will always bring their resources back. They can withdraw them, make their investments and bring it back.

All best, Piotr.
@tombstone(64)· 2491d
I agree that a shorter staking period would likely make STEEM somewhat more attractive to investors. On the other hand, the security of having a long staking period should not be discounted, especially given that a) active keys are handled frequently, b) there is currently no hardware wallet support, and c) I'm not aware of good options for notification services to help warn users of an unexpected powerdown. Also, taking the experience of EOS into account, we should be concerned about the possibility of exchanges voting with user stake.

With these things in mind, currently I would caution against entertaining anything less than a 4-week powerdown. Even then, I would personally want to see a) some good notification services, and b) a powerdown schedule that is back-end heavy...e.g. 4 increasing weekly powerdowns of 10%, 20%, 30%, and 40%. That way users still get 100% in 4 weeks instead of the current 13 weeks, but the new risks are mitigated fairly substantially, and without adding much complexity, compared to 4 equal weekly powerdowns of 25%.

Lastly, I see the benefits of having some kind of dynamic staking scheme with variable APR, which could enable staking options both shorter and longer than 4 weeks (where longer staking periods would come with more voting power). But obviously this is more complicated and would take more time to come up with the most sensible (and simplest) possible scheme, and to code/test it. Not to mention, I would not favor enabling any staking periods shorter than 4 weeks without first having hardware support in place.

P.S. I get that items such as notifications and hardware support are not core level changes.

@smooth @therealwolf
@throwbackthurs(47)· 2491d
@thecryptodrive there are thousands of stolen keys floating around this blockchain so a periodic key change should also be addressed. Please look into this as I have no real voice on this platform at the moment https://steemit.com/spam/@throwbackthurs/steemengineteam-leading-lambs-to-the-slaughter
@treepi(65)· 2491d
1 week or a few days top would be optimal. 13 weeks serves no real purpose now and is a big discourager to powering up.
@tcpolymath(69)· 2492d
Supported. Powerdown time is not a security feature and shouldn't be treated as a security feature. If a security feature is needed, add a feature similar to the current Savings which applies to stake, and prevents it from being powered down for a period of time, preferably user-determined.

#sbi-skip
@enginewitty(78)· 2492d
With all the people powering down and struggling with the #newsteem protocols, I'm not sure this is the best time to implement it. I'm all for it, but feel the timing is off.
@tradingideas(76)· 2492d
4 weeks is still long. I prefer 1 week. I think a long period of unstaking is not helpful to people who want to invest steem. And also Steem should introduce a way to burn the already issued coins.
@onthewayout(62)· 2492d
I do not think that your premise for the proposal is proven. It may be correct (or not) but we need data and not take this decision lightly. Since my response is getting too long I decided instead to write a post about it.
@themarkymark(81)· 2492d
I'm ok with as low as 4 weeks but not lower. There is certainly a lot of people who will not power up (or powers up less) due to the large risk of a 13-week power down. On the other hand, it will encourage more powering down and dumping. No one knows which will be more common.

With the changes to curation, we have already seen more powering up.

I'm not going to vote the silly proposal though.
@chireerocks(75)· 2492d
@thecryptodrive, I am Supporting this and definitely 4 Weeks makes sense both way. Hope that soon this change will be live and running.

You are right and this is discussed many times, 13 Weeks is very long time and many Investors prefer more Liquid Space.

Yes, more complex changes can make things complex. At this moment this Space needs one change at a time to keep everything smooth.

Have a wonderful time ahead and stay blessed.

Posted using Partiko Android
@themarkymark(81)· 2492d
I don't get why this is a proposal, you can add/remove votes on a proposal. Why not use something like Dpoll?
@vikisecrets(80)· 2492d
4 weeks or even shorter is okay 👍 inflation has to be solved too, but this is another topic ;) (SBD and reward pool induced inflation)
@lordbutterfly(80)· 2492d
A big fat YES!

And it should be 1 week. Absolutely no reason why it should not be 1 week.

And the safety feature some are clammoring about .... don't be idiots. That feature is important in 0.01% of cases and does not justify such a long powerdown and losing so many potential investors.
99% of tokens have no staking and they offer satisfactory safety for your funds.
So this is a non argument.

This is the only thing that could potentially save steem. Not the smts not something else... This.
Save our shitty volume, and attract exchanges and investors.

I can't stress enough how important this change would be.
@chesatochi(73)· 2492d
I believe is a good idea and I am going to vlog about it this morning.

Posted using Partiko Android
@guiltyparties(74)· 2493d
This isn't a frontend vs chain development problem. It's something that needs a blended approach.

I'm for the change if:
1. Accounts must opt-in to the 4 week divestment rather than opt-out of it. The 13 week divestment is a security feature that prevents accounts from being instantly cleared out if compromised.
2. It is treated like an advanced feature and not like a simple click of a button. Frontends should commit ahead of time to provide sufficient information to users who are selecting it.
We have to recognize that while we're aiming to improve our attractiveness to investors we're also reciting "mainstreaming" like a broken record. There's no way to mix advanced and basic. If we try we'll end up with something that doesn't work for anyone.

There are rolling waves of phishing and hacking on Steem. We recently suppressed one such wave. Accounts that are compromised may not know they are compromised as they rely on posting authority through myriad dapps, which does not inform them something is wrong when the hacker changes their keys. It usually takes up to a week for an account to notice they are hacked and their funds are being moved. If they lose a quarter of their powered up STEEM the results to those investors and to the retention of same would be devastating. There's this perception that most phishing victims are new users with no investment. That's false. Most of the victims were active for months if not years and either accumulated or invested their stake. The largest hack (irrecoverable) was about 36k STEEM and the next one down, from an account that then invested and became a whale, was 10k. The opt-in should have a timer of at least 7 days but preferably 30 days, same as other key functions, before the opt-in takes effect. That would add another layer of protection.

Other forms of exploitation that we like to call "abuse" are highly likely to occur but shouldn't preclude implementation. Removal of a capability to halt a potential minor risk isn't the correct response in my opinion. I treat phishing/hacking as a major risk, for the record. Those who haven't been victims yet may disagree but anyone can be next.

At the same time the 4 week schedule holds merit for advanced users who know how to safeguard and monitor their wallets and are active traders. Tying up capital that can be used for trading is pretty stupid. Tying up capital is however necessary to outfit projects and to obviously perform basic functions like curation with any level of enjoyment. Those same advanced users should arguably have the capability to swap their trustee account and recover themselves if compromised.

Whether a divestment schedule change can attract investors is another matter. We're assuming that it will. It's going to take developer hours and a hardfork, both of which are expensive for everyone already invested and involved. Granted it can be bundled with the next planned fork, which would make it more acceptable to the ventures. It's still going to take time from the development team no matter how the code will be approached.

We need to answer the following before we start to the best of our ability:
1. What quantifiable estimate of value is it projected to add?
2. How will this change be communicated to new investors?
3. Will it cause rapid divestment by the current investors?
@steemitboard(66)· 2493d
Congratulations @thecryptodrive! 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!

Vote for @Steemitboard as a witness to get one more award and increased upvotes!
@timcliff(74)· 2493d
I’m in support, although not necessarily as part of the next hardfork. I’m not a hard no on that, but I’m concerned about adding complexity and risk to an already complex and risky hardfork (SMTs).
@smooth(74)· 2493d
I'm all for four weeks or even one week. I don't think it is demonstrated that these long lockups provide clear benefit at the system level. Yes there are benefits to an individual whose account gets hacked, but these come at a cost of adding dead weight (which then contributes to everyone losing 99%+ of value) to the system as a while. I'm not sure that is a good trade-off.

If people want a longer lock-up for security purposes then perhaps the savings account feature which has never been used much can be repurposed to a voluntary longer safety-focused lock up.

There are also other approaches to reducing hacks such as building in 2FA with a mobile app. Lock-up is not the way to do this.

I'm sure there are people who will deny that Steem's misfeatures such as long lockups and high inflation are responsible for its price decline but frankly speaking I think that is 99% bullshit. Yes it is a bear market and yes crypto coin prices can have a mind of their own, but most of the reasons Steem has declined from a top 10 or maybe top 20 coin to barely hanging on in the top 100 are bad design and execution decision of our own making.
@chrisrice(68)· 2493d
I dislike this proposal.

One of the reasons why I chose Steem is because I can lock it up for 13 weeks.

Posted using Partiko Android
@martie7(62)· 2493d

There was also a discussion about adding an instant power down by burning 5-10% of the stake

Nice idea to burn more steem!
@geekgirl(80)· 2493d
Four weeks is still too long. It should be lowered to one week.
@steem-ua(64)· 2493d
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 75 contributions, your post is ranked at #3. Congratulations!

Evaluation of your UA score:
- Your follower network is great!
- The readers like your 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
@brianoflondon(77)· 2493d
I'm supporting this and also think the proposal that @theycallmedan has made repeatedly of allowing a penalised quick power down is well worth implementing if the security implications can be thought through properly.
@sepracore(64)· 2493d
I am on board. Bottom line is this issue needs to be addressed because all new SMTs created will have the same power down time. If we already know we are going to reduce it from 13 weeks, we need to do it now as opposed to having a SMT Nightmare involving recreating SMTs and trying to airdrop new tokens, etc when we finally shorten the power down period.
@ocdb(77)· 2493d
Voted for visibility and burned rewards. This vote is not a yes or no regarding the proposal.
@therealwolf(77)· 2493d
Update: I'm not exactly strongly in favor, but I find it acceptable, as long as we're working on a solution that brings a more dynamic solution in the near future.

~~I'm not in favour.~~

Reducing it without thinking further is a move without any hindsight on what Steem is supposed to be. I'm not arguing that 13 weeks power-down is a stupid thing to have at this point in time, but reducing it to 4 weeks is just as stupid.

The same goes for this post. You don't start a discussion by initiating a vote. You start a discussion by stating the problem. And the problem is that the 13 weeks powerdown doesn't provide enough incentives, but removing it would hurt Steem just as well, or at least remove an important safety feature.

It is good to have Steem that is locked away for some period of time. Both for the individual and for the currency. It gives people that have locked away their Steempower some kind of safety due to the prolonged time until the currency becomes liquid fully. And on the other hand, it gives the community leverage over big stakeholders, as well as stakeholders more time to think, instead of acting on emotional decisions.

So, to summarize my stance:
- I'm against this proposal or any proposal that simply wants to remove/reduce the powerdown period, without including future plans
- I'm in favour of a dynamic staking period of Steem (also called Steempower), with ever-increasing incentives (similar to what dan larimer wrote here) If someone believes in STEEM and wants to lock it up for 2 or 5 years (because that's how long it takes for things to truly settle), why shouldn't we let them and give them a nice incentive on top of it?
- I'm also very strongly in favour of a discussion on the future of the Steem currency. Do we need SBD? Should we have staked STEEM instead of Steempower? Should rewards earned by the rewards-pool have a longer staking period? (e.g. 1 year) Fact is: this currency was developed by people who were smart but not perfect. Removing things we don't like, without questioning the core philosophy will result in a currency that's as wonky as the tower of Pisa.
@quantumdeveloper(58)· 2493d
How can having more short term investors who try to squeeze as much value as they can out of the steem until they leave at the first sign of trouble(thus intensifying every price drop) in any way aid the value of steem?
@fsm-liquid(48)· 2493d
In my opinion it's a horrible idea.

When an account is compromised with 4 week powerdown worst case scenario if it's recovered on day 28+ all its stake whether it's powered up or not are stolen (Is it even worth recovering anymore?). Even if its recovered day 7+ after it's stolen it loses at least 25% of its powered up stake while with our current powerdown period at worst case when it's recovered on day 28+ it only loses 4/13 of its powered up stake, a little more than 30%. After 30 days of course you lose the account to the hacker on both cases. Shortening powerdown is also bad because how our hardfork works. 4 weeks is not too bad (still worse than 13 weeks), but 1 week is plain horrible. If it's only 1 week exchanges will undoubtedly start voting for witnesses. You say our powerdown period is too long compared to EOS but they are having a huge governance problem. Even Dan Larimer is proposing staking pools with up to 10 years(!) lockup period and the 3 day lockup EOS tokens have 0 vote for BPs, the minimum lockup to have any vote for BPs is 3 month, pretty close with Steem right now and it seems like it won't have gradual weekly powerdown like Steem has. If an "investor" can't even commit to their "investment" for 13 weeks do they even can be counted as "invested" in the chain? If they just want to speculate on STEEM price that's what liquid STEEM is for, hold those instead. The instant powerdown with burn fee is even more horrible idea. Now instead of losing 25% of your powered up stake each week when your account is compromised you lose 100% right away, GG! However, I agree that in order to participate in PoB someone shouldn't be forced to lock up their capital for 13 weeks.

Here are my proposed changes instead:
- 2 separate staking pools
- The first pool has 1 week powerdown (even better than 1 month) and the second pool has 13 weeks powerdown
- Entitlements of the first pool: VP and RC
- Entitlements of the second pool: VP, RC, Witness vote, SPS vote, etc. (The benefits of SP right now).
- Delegations works as if the pools are mixed. (You can delegate 210 STEEM away if you have 100 STEEM staked on the first pool and 110 STEEM staked on the second pool). Delegations delegate VP and RC like how it works right now and will interact with the RC delegation pool however it works in the next hardfork.
- SP reward on posts can go to first pool or the second according to witness consensus. The name of each pool should be discussed with the community (only one of them keeps the name SP).
- Stake on first pool can be converted to the second pool instantly but not the other way around (similar to Dan Larimer's proposal).
- Current SP can be converted to first pool or the second pool on hardfork according to witness consensus. Each has their benefits and drawbacks. If it's converted to the first pool non-committed people gets weeded out really fast as they won't be converting their stake into the second pool but witness votes basically reset to zero and may cause instability in governance and block production for a short term. Converting to second pool is safer but will take 13 week correction time until it shows the results of the previous way. Of course we can assign a ratio too (like 90% goes to the first pool and 10% goes to the second pool) and have the benefits of both but needs a little longer implementation time.
- When these separate pools is implemented I think making the second pool powerdown period even longer than 13 week can be considered if we want to see more committed witness voters and more protection when an account is compromised.
Yes, these changes will be complicated to code but I think this is the way to go instead of simply reducing the powerdown period to please the so-called "investors" which in my opinion is very shortsighted .

That's my thoughts on this.
@nextgen622(76)· 2493d
Yes, exactly what we need.
@queeirisa(64)· 2494d
This is a great idea. So many of us here have thought about this once or more. It would bring in more investors because personally, I think 13 weeks is a very long time.
@contrabourdon(73)· 2494d
@organduo

Posted using Partiko iOS
@contrabourdon(73)· 2494d
Great idea @thecryptodrive. @untersatz curate 100

Posted using Partiko iOS
@bashadow(70)· 2494d
I could not find the proposal, perhaps a bit soon for it to show up on the vote list.

I do believe a 4 week time frame would be a grand Idea, I feel this would decrease the amount of stake held in one hand and make it a little more palatable when an investor invested and then decide it just was not for them.
@ackza(74)· 2494d
I just launched the Infowars Token tribe and enabled scot and staking and i chose 3 days, 1 period, just like eos, because if i have to rely on some staking period of a month of more then it cant stand on its own too legs :) bitcoin has no staking so 3 days will be fine even , for tribe tokens

steem may need at least 7 days to avoid some sort of gaming i think but yeah well see :) Im hoping for Freemium tribe creation and or ENg proposals on @eosdac dac factory for ENG on EOS soon so we can propose good tribe sand get funding foir it
@kus-knee(74)· 2494d
This would certainly alleviate some fears for potential investors!

Great to have you here building, promoting and guiding Steem @thecryptodrive!
@eirik(69)· 2494d
The best proposal outhere. It can attract many new people that just don't like having their money frozen for so long.
@stackin(78)· 2494d
4 weeks is a good idea in my opinion 😀

Posted using Partiko iOS
@mindtrap(75)· 2494d
I wouldn’t mind if it was reduced to 2 weeks tbh. Or even a week only
@witnessnews(2)· 2494d
This post has been resteemed by @witnessnews.

Follow @witnessnews to keep up with active witness updates.