4 week powerdown summary tldnr

in hive-167922 •  2 months ago 

Last month there was the suggestion by @thecryptodrive from the @buildteam to reduce the powerdown time from 13 weeks 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.

https://steempeak.com/steemdao/@thecryptodrive/hf-proposal-vote-to-reduce-power-down-period-to-4-weeks

I have been reading a lot of posts on the topic and thought do make an overall recap for those that have not followed or those that just want a handy summary.
There are a lot of views pro and contra and then suggestions and alternatives

For all of you who said: TLDNR to long did not read

PRO:

  • investor flexibility
  • why is it 13 weeks in the first place?
  • encourages more speculation
  • could encourage more power ups

CONTRA:

  • security liability (hackers can get more money faster)
  • people actually use keys often so more chance of theft
  • would allow exchanges to power up and start voting for posts and witnesses
  • just buy liquid steem to speculate

SUGGESTIONS

Personally I do not really have a strong view on why it should be 13 weeks in the first place but it might be prudent to look at the alternatives before we just change the 13 to 4 in the code which is quite easy according to the Steemit Devs https://steempeak.com/steem/@steemitblog/feedback-wanted-4-week-power-down

As far as I can tell the proposal has all the votes needed in the https://steemitwallet.com/proposals (including my small one) so at least there is a lot of steem power behind the votes. I guess that means that those who are interested have voted even though that may not be the majority of the users. (on the other hand if you look around, mostly the majority does not care how something works as long as it works).

If someone wants to leave because they do not like the project they will do so and the 13 or 4 weeks will not make a difference. On the other hand the lower threshold might pull some new users and investors over down the rabbithole.

so here are the last 2 things to look at before final implementation

  • do it with the next HF but only 13 changed to 4
  • do it more complicated on the HF after that with one or more features mentioned above

Posted via Steemleo

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

Enjoy a $trendotoken from MAPX! Please also take a look at @MAPXV and @MAXUV as MAPX tokens almost run out.
Also, please take a look at our new Nonsense Writing Contest post with MAPR prizes.

I don't really have a strong view of this, and as a tiny account I just plan to keep going about what I do.

My only thought/reservation on the issue is that it seems to only solidify the perception of Steem related projects as current income opportunities (short term, opportunistic) rather than investment opportunities (longer term holding for capital appreciation).

=^..^=

very true, but on the other hand, if the whole ecosystem wants to grow we are going to need an influx of money and that will partly be from investors who need to have the liquidity option

Thanks for the post in support of the initiative!

  ·  2 months ago (edited)

I guess that vote trading will be implemented by the exchanges.