RE: [공지] @proxy.token 증인 투표 운영 방침(@proxy.token witness voting policy)

To the korean community:

First of all, thanks for having upvoted the necessary amount of top witnesses to protect the chain against being controlled by one single entity. That was a honourable step.

Second we would like to comment on your opinion requests:

(Are you willing to shorten the SP power-down period to three to seven days from current period? )

I have my serious doubts about shortening the power down period to less than 4 weeks. The problem I mainly see is that a too short period will give custodians accounts - such as exchanges - the possibility to power-up customer stake to inference in the blockchain governance. Today we are protected by the fact that powering-up the stake will effectively lock the customers liquid stake which could derive in the possibility for them to perform withdrawals on request. Imagine what would happened if you go to your bank to cash out some money and they deny your paynment due to liquidity shortage. Even worse, the bank tells you that they have invested your stake in a long-term investment fond.
At the same time,I agree that 13 weeks could be too long for a sort-to-mid term investors type and it could force them to his invested stake liquid loosing the paid interest rate distribute among SP holders to compensate inflation.

(Are you willing to remove down-voting policy of STEEM blockchain? )

I in-fact see the need of the actual downvoting policy and I will not willing to remove it until we find a way to ensure or support content discoverability. As you know, we are a content oriented social network. The economic incenivation should be done in a way that the network rewards "good" content better than bad or abusive content, Of course, content curation is subjectve measurement but we need a way to signalice likes as well as dislikes. Might be it will be usefull to have other kind of not that negative user interface, since a just a dislike (downvote) is not representative enough. Sometimes you agree that a post would be not worth more than, han 10 dolars. If the potential reward at the time of voting is 20 dolars, the curator will press the "downvoting". The autor would than get the impression than the curator does not like his post at all, but in reallity, he likes it, just not "that much". Perhaps a change in the UI to signalice that you are willing to value it at 10% and the sistem performs the vote/downvote automatically depending on your tarhet value.

(Are you willing to introduce smart contact into the STEEM block chain? )

I think to introduce smart-contracts capabiities into STEEM blockchain will result into more costly and unpredictable operations. Thd good thing about steem that it does not too many things - only social operations - but these are quick and cheap and much more escalable for a muldi dapp blockchain.

(Are you willing to introduce a paid subscription model?)
Im not sure what you are referring with this question, perhaps I need to dig more in details to get your exact requirements. With my first understanding I would suspect that a subscription model is anyway something to be managed at client level and not at blockchain level.

And at least, sorry for my bad english. As you might know, im a proud spanish native speaker.