Thoughts on Reducing the Power Down Period to 4 Weeks from 13 Weeks Currently

in #stake3 years ago (edited)

Yesterday Steemit invited us on their steemmitblog account to give our feedback on the possibility to reduce the power down period from 13 weeks as it is now to 4 weeks.

It was normal for Steemit to ask for this feedback, in my opinion, because the proposal regarding this matter has a large support.

But as I mentioned in the tutorial from a few days ago, polls using Steem Proposals System only measure support, so "yeses". They don't measure "nos", or "I don't know's" or other options. Even if other ways are needed to quantify different options, a large support is something to consider.

Understanding that, Steemit asked for feedback, positive through votes on the proposal, negative or nuanced through comments on their post, or through your own post.

Before I offer my two cents, I wrote a while back, when the proposal was published, a compilation with the available options and their pros and cons, as I saw them. This may be a good reading material in the context (including comments):

Now, about reducing the power down period to 4 weeks...

Here are my thoughts on this.

In my own case, a shorter power down period would be beneficial, because I constantly move SP from my active accounts to my inactive SP holder account. I would do that quicker.

In general, while I don't think reducing the power down period to 4 weeks would hurt us, the balance between liquefying SP / vested STEEM / interest rewards needs a better solution.

There is however the risk that if we take the easy solution of reducing the power down period, we won't consider any alternative solution for a while, because the assessment will be the problem has been dealt with recently, and other issues will take precedence.

Reducing the power down period to 4 weeks attempts to please all and will possibly end up not pleasing anyone.

The better solution I am referring to, would not be something that can be coded in a hurry to include in the SMT hardfork.

The options 4 & 5 from the post comparing the alternatives seem good candidates for better solutions to me. In one of them, we fine tune the rights offered by two having two staking pools, in the other one we fine tune the interest received based on the duration of the power up.

As for the instant power down choice, I had this to say:

If the 5% fee were to be implemented, I am more inclined to support it, if it were opt-in based. And the opt-in effect should be delayed (2 weeks, 30 days?) in order to prevent someone who compromises an account to opt-in and automatically withdraw. As for the destination of the fee, I'd allow options, regarding the destination: @steem.dao, @null, maybe @steemalliance if they can take this kind of funding.

Those who would opt in assume the risk that if their accounts become compromised after the delay is over and the opt-in becomes effective, all SP can be cleared out by the person controlling their account. On the other hand, they will be able to "withdraw" SP at will and at any time, less the fee.

Those who don't opt-in would be protected from immediate SP "withdrawals". They would see a notification if a person controlling their compromised account attempts to opt in for immediate withdrawals, and have enough time to react (as in get back control of the account and opt out). Much like power downs that are initiated but don't pay anything before a week.

But we do have this to think about, a comment by @chrisrice on the same post:

You forgot to mention that a long Power Down time frame like 13 weeks prevents exchanges from voting for Witnesses and SPS Proposals.

He refers to the fact that if the power down period is very short or we have instant power down, exchanges might be tempted to vote for witnesses using (partial) STEEM holdings of their clients they have under their control. They may be deterred by the 5% fee to withdraw immediately though...


Here is my vision for this:
The idea to shorten the withdrawal time has long ripened.
I would reduce it to 1 week.
There is no opportunity to vote during this week.
As protection, white addresses are used, the change of which is possible under certain conditions (you can think about the conditions)
I like the idea of ​​white addresses to which I can deduce. Speculators move the price on markets around the world, so we need them like air !!! I am 100% sure of this
We need speculation and they are not there - all investors are here due to the circumstances.
I don’t like the idea of ​​losing 5% of the money I earned (are you not a bank or you want to take a step back ??? @aggroed or who is the initiator of the idea? - I appeal to you. Even if it is burned, I am against it.
I do not want to go to jail and no one wants to - I must quickly operate my own funds as I see fit. Today I vote, tomorrow I want to leave - only such conditions attract people and money!

Posted via Steemleo

I agree we need more liquidity for Steem and before we'll have enough, big investors will be less interested to invest in Steem. And I don't talk about speculators, I talk about investors who may look at Steem as a growing business. Speculators can work anywhere, as long as there is liquidity. They don't even have to power up. And yes, we need more speculators too, because on any market and any asset class they provide most daily transactions.

I think the 5% fee was chosen for the easiness of implementation, compared to other options. I believe theycallmedan came up with it. I wouldn't support a solution where a speculator is enticed to be a shareholder to take major decisions on the blockchain. And that would be a solution that has no downside for the speculator (i.e. the fee). I still had my own two cents about this idea which would make the accounts less exposed to being cleared out, if they are compromised. You don't want to pay the fee? You power down normally.

No one should pay these stupid 5% (why not 10% why not 95%).
People require quick unlocking - the task of developers to do this and come up with a simple and safe option (there are a million options for how to do this)
It’s just someone’s profitable that you don’t have the opportunity to quickly exit - I’m 100% sure of this

There are different options for sure. One of them would be to give up voting rights (for witnesses and SPS proposals in particular) and the interest, for the ability to quickly exit at no fee. I don't think a fee would be necessary then.

This is already better - you need a great discussion with the community - glad to meet you!

:) You know, I was debating with you the instant withdrawals thing, but that's not what I support.

I would, as an alternative, if there is the opt in option (or a different solution) to protect those who want protection in case their accounts get compromised. But there are other proposals I find better. I linked them in the post.

Option 3.1. very good - you have to think more (truth is born in a dispute!)

As it is presented there, with full power down after one week and no other restrictions I don't agree with. Too beneficial to speculators, too detrimental to people seeking protection.

This would be amazing!
4 weeks is nothing.

1220432019823517697 #posh twitter metadata:Z2FkcmlhbjE1fHxodHRwczovL3R3aXR0ZXIuY29tL2dhZHJpYW4xNS9zdGF0dXMvMTIyMDQzMjAxOTgyMzUxNzY5NyAjcG9zaHw= ~~~