Steem - We need to increase demand for Steem Power, not shorten the Power Down!steemCreated with Sketch.

in steem •  last month 

Thoughts on a shorter Power Down period...

Recently a faster Power Down was proposed by Steemit,Inc, asking for community input.

Specifically a 4 week power down.

The post can be seen here:

https://steemit.com/steem/@steemitblog/feedback-wanted-4-week-power-down

As it stands currently, I would vote "no" to that proposal.

My reasons...

  • The pros down't outweigh the cons
  • The next HF has enough in it already
  • Market may not be able to handle it
  • Figuring out how to make SP more attractive makes more sense

Overall, I mostly just don't think the pros outweigh the cons.

The pros would be possibly increased steem being powered up due to the ability to get it out faster.

Though, I don't really think that will be the case.

A 4 week power up still locks funds for a month.

That is still way too long to get people to change behavior.

Plus that likely will have no impact on whether people choose to buy steem or not, which is really what we want to be encouraging.

The cons would be people's steem being less secure, potential reward pool issues, and perhaps the market not being able to handle it... along with unforeseen issues.

As it stands now, if somewhere were to hack into your account and start a power down, they could only get away with 1/13th of your steem power each week.

Anything shorter than that, and they get more.

That's not my sole reason to be against because I do understand that want/need to get more people buying and powering up.

However, if we are talking strictly investors here, they don't have to power up their steem.

They have every right to buy it and sit on it. They could even put it in the savings account in their wallets if they want it to be a bit safer than left on an exchange.

Powering up steem is strictly to participate in the reward pool, sps, and witness selections. If someone is just interested in speculating on steem prices, there doesn't need to be any changes for them to do so.

And if they are worried about inflation, steem is starting to get to more reasonable levels with it approaching 7%ish in the near future, which is nothing compared to 1000% pumps.

Apart from all of that, I also think this coming HF already has enough in it already.

We don't need to be cramming other things in that may have unforeseen consequences and not readily apparent benefits.

Not to mention making changes like this could help increase the liquid supply of steem at a time where there is little to no demand for steem as it is.

Not the right time for that.

Instead of making a change like this I think we need to be focused on making steem power more attractive in the first place

If steem power is extremely attractive, the 13 week holding period won't be enough of a deterrent to keep investment away.

The solution to this problem isn't changing the rules, it's simply changing the demand to hold steem power.

The more demand there is the rest will take care of itself.

Until I see proposals that are more geared towards that I will vote no on minor changes like this that likely won't move the needle in any meaningful way, and could end up being a net negative.

Those are my rambled and jumbled thoughts on the matter.

Overall, I don't see enough of a positive to vote for something like this.

Stay informed my friends.

Image Source:

https://www.altcoinbuzz.io/reviews/dapps/steem-running-out-of-steam/

-Doc

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:  

I want to say this is a well thought out solution. I like the points that you touched upon. After reflecting upon it for a few minutes, I find myself leaning this way.

Plus that likely will have no impact on whether people choose to buy steem or not, which is really what we want to be encouraging.

I agree with this. I think this is some attempt to lift the price of STEEM through changes in the base structure of Steem. We heard the same arguments about the change in EIP: after all the price of Steem was down because of the economics of Steem (or so we were told). The change was made and what happened? The price of Steem went down further. Hmm maybe that wasnt the reason.

Traders are not going to trade Steem with a 4 week power down any more than they would a 13 week. As it stands, traders are not likely to power up anyway because they prefer flexibility.

Investors are not passing on Steem because of the power down time...they are doing so because they are not aware of it, something that I believe will change with the additions going in the next hard fork.

SMTs and RC pools will provide enough reason to hold SP. In short, it is going to be required.

Posted via Steemleo

why is STINC wasting time on such a proposal?

Posted using Partiko iOS

  ·  last month (edited)

How does revamping Savings account to be more geared toward short term holdings, no voting rights (possibly with some low level interest) sound to you? How about using the interest portion of the inflation to earn differentiated interest, more for holders that stake long term (a bit similar to long term deposits). Both are not solutions that are implementable in a haste.

I agree. This is a distraction from the real issues Steem has it attracting and retaining good content creators. You need to be earning well for it to be worth powering down and if your posts earn big then you could keep powering down and have regular income anyway. A shorter period would just encourage people to take the money and run. They should be glad it was reduced from the original 2 years!