You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

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

in #steemdaolast year (edited)

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.

Sort:  

I am for less than 4 weeks, like just one week. Long powerdown was coupled with high inflation rate for SP in order to disincentivize liquidating STEEM. For the current economic design, I think one week is a better choice.

Thanks @clayop, please cast your vote on the proposal if you haven't already.

@proxy.token supports your opinion, and thank you for your voice as many Korean users think, Mr.@clayop!

Funny, I don't see anyone clamouring for lock-in periods with bitcoin. Or, really, any asset in the world. This stuff has been solved a long time ago with various methods of cold storage. I'd imagine hardware wallet support will be enough for most regular people. Not to mention, there's the account recovery solution and savings account. Even beyond those, there are better solutions. What more does one need, at the cost of negating all investor appeal?

Many of these "unique features" of Steem have failed. It would be prudent to adopt what has proven to work in the crypto market. There's a $240 billion market of tokens with no lockup, how much for those with 13 week walls, again?

I'm using my active-key quite often, especially due to the fact that Steem is a cryptocurrency that is being used, in comparison to Bitcoin, which most people simply hodl. So yes, there is a completely different level of security need for Steem.

There's orders of magnitude greater usage for Bitcoin. BTC transfers are worth thousands of times more than STEEM transfers every single day. Not to mention, Ethereum and its many ERC tokens have a far greater diversity of operations and transactions than Steem, as do other several other chains, almost all of which have zero lock-in. Or, EOS, which processes dozens of times the number of transactions as Steem, and has a (still unpopular) 3 day lock-in.

That's complete BS. Obviously the median transfer of BTC is higher, but most of it is through cold-wallets. I wouldn't hodl 100k or 1M in BTC in a hot-wallet. I would only access that wallet from a trusted souce very, very rarely. I would probably even have multiple wallets to reduce the risk factor and use a hot-wallet for most general transfers i.e. purchases.

Glad you are of the same mindset, please will you cast your vote on the proposal @
@liberosist

My vote is negligible, but I've voted anyway. To be clear, I would prefer to have a 3 days power down period, and have the payout period reduced to 24 or 48 hours. But 4 weeks is a step in the right direction.

To be clear, I would prefer to have a 3 days power down period, and have the payout period reduced to 24 or 48 hours

Haha, bad idear there.

Why would you want payout reduced? Then you'd only have 24 or 48 hours to earn rewards. Way too short. People don't log on every day to upvote things. If anything it should be longer for payout periods. The fact that you can only earn rewards for the 1st week is kind of shitty. It should be forever with payouts being made every X amount of days or X amount of earned Steem.

Steem isn't locked up, it's liquid, just like Bitcoin.

It's only Steem Power that's locked and I think it makes sense to keep Steem and Steem Power separate and distinct.

or even one week

So, you don't mind Bittrex staking its customers funds and using it to vote for witnesses, SPS and posts ?

Another good point. We're seeing it with EOS that exchanges are using customer funds for voting purposes.

Thanks @smooth, please cast your vote on the proposal if you haven't already.

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.

How exactly will this prevent any hacking from the blockchain level?

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.

The savings feature works only for STEEM, not STEEMPOWER. Which means, in order to be "save", someone had to forfeit any rewards earned through vesting inflation or possible voting-rewards.


I get the point of the lockup currently being a somewhat dis-incentive. But we're not fixing the system, by turning a screw without asking whether or not the screw is at the right place or if the screw breaks if we turn it more.

How exactly will this prevent any hacking from the blockchain level?

I'm not sure what you talking about. If you mean bugs in the blockchain code, lock ups don't prevent that either. They prevent people who get access to keys (for example by exploiting the web site) from performing transactions. 2FA would provide pretty much the same protection.

The savings feature works only for STEEM, not STEEMPOWER

Yes, I was suggesting that it perhaps be changed to work in a more useful way since the existing feature is almost unused. Again, an experiment which failed, so we should move on and try something else.

by turning a screw without asking whether or not the screw is at the right place or if the screw breaks if we turn it more.

I don't agree we are doing that. IMO we are thinking about what could break and concluding that nothing would. In part we are also looking around and seeing what several hundred other active blockchain projects are doing and seeing that they do just fine without months of lockup in the base layer.

I don't agree we are doing that. IMO we are thinking about what could break and concluding that nothing would. In part we are also looking around and seeing what several hundred other active blockchain projects are doing and seeing that they do just fine without months of lockup in the base layer.

I don't mind the reduction of power-down if it comes with a dynamic model and increased the incentive to lock it up longer.

Yes, I was suggesting that it perhaps be changed to work in a more useful way since the existing feature is almost unused. Again, an experiment which failed, so we should move on and try something else.

The only thing that failed is a model with a fixed time of 3 days, which is just not dynamic enough. Imagine you could set whatever time you want, maybe with a hard-cap of 1 year or so. You could go as low as 1 hour or 3 hours, if you're a business who is doing some kind of escrow job or maybe 7 days, depending on your needs.

I don't agree we are doing that. IMO we are thinking about what could break and concluding that nothing would. In part we are also looking around and seeing what several hundred other active blockchain projects are doing and seeing that they do just fine without months of lockup in the base layer.

You mean what they're not doing. Am I that crazy for thinking that a dynamic lockup with higher APR will incentivize more people to lock-up their Steem? Who else got that kind of a system? Pretty much no other blockchain AFAIK.

 last year 

I'd go for that. I'm here for the long haul and would readily lock in my SP for 5 years for a solid boost to vote weight and resource credits.

Ooooh, I quite like where this idea is going.

 last year 

First time I bought and powered up it was for 104 weeks.

I don't mind the reduction of power-down if it comes with a dynamic model and increased the incentive to lock it up longer.

One obvious compromise, @therealwolf, might be to weight the share of ones inflationary reward with how many weeks one has chosen to lock down their stake with a range of one week to one year. This request for a shorter lock down request is obviously with investor types in mind. The only concrete reason given is that everyone else is doing it. My compromise would be for the benifit of HODLers like myself. 😎

Allow me to allow the math majors to figure out what the increase in inflation rewards would be as weeks of the lock down setting is increased on ones stake.

As the inflation rate is slowly decreasing, the benefit of the change would eventually begin to favor the investor types more over time. This makes sense as the token would be slowly decreasing in production at the same time.

Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...

Why I was proposing the two staking pools is to cater to both short term and longer term investors.
Shorter term investors have more liquidity while still can participate in PoB and longer term investors who are willing to give up liquidity to show commitment by locking up have more power in governance.
The silly thing about the current system imo is that 13 weeks is such a tall commitment especially on crypto space to participate in PoB, one of our "unique feature". On the other hand, people with minimal commitment voting on the future of the chain looks like recipe for disaster.
If it's deemed to be too complicated to implement I suppose it's not worth it after all.

Custom duration lockup period that works with SP would be cool but It will never be implemented because it will never be on top priority lol.

If this proposal passes as is I am actually more in favor for 1 week instead chickening on 4 weeks, maybe I am too paranoid about exchanges voting. As for security... I guess we need to be more careful with our keys.

I think staking multiple pools, variable locking periods for security, etc. might be okay but I don't think they should be at the base layer. If we had even simple smart contracts like Bitcoin or perhaps even a tiny bit more powerful, then these sorts of features could be added as applications (and this is necessary for things like cross chain swaps, payment channels, etc.). That's obviously not going to happen in the next version but once we are done playing with SMTs, maybe we will start to realize that trying to satisfy every need at the base layer with hard forks needed for each and every change is impractical and foolish.

Ideal solution to me is where staking long period is not only a security feature but also grants more power for witness voting and SPS by giving up liquidity. Ideally will be like 1 week stake have x1 vote multiplier, 2 week stake have x2 vote multiplier, and so on. If staking for a long period have no incentive whatsoever might as well have minimum stake period.

I agree that reducing the lock up period to 4 weeks is going to be a positive change. 13 weeks seems to be a huge amount of time. If an uptrend starts and you want to unstake then at the current situation would be a waste of effort but while 4 weeks might be just right.

Posted using Partiko Android

Agree with you @smooth

One week power down should be enough to still feel safe and secured (as a user). However somehow I like idea of 4 weeks power down much more than 1 or 13.

Yours
Piotr