Feedback Wanted: 4 Week Power Down
Hello Steemians, in today’s post we want to talk about the proposal for a 4 week power down and how we plan to approach this issue. We are very excited about the fact that such ideas are being proposed by the community and we think that use of the Steem.DAO to gauge support is an excellent use case for this innovative tool.
Community Support
There is now sufficient community support that we must seriously consider the change. We have begun internal discussions, and we will soon release additional communications intended to provide the community with more information about the nature of this change, the potential risks/rewards, and alternate implementations.
Primary Concerns
Our primary concerns with such changes is that they represent the will of the community without posing a risk to the chain. The Steem.DAO proposal does a great job of quantifying support amongst large stakeholders, but participation in the Steem.DAO is still quite low and users can’t downvote proposals, which limits our ability to extrapolate broad support from these results.
Get Out the Vote!
Ultimately, we will base our decisions on the information we have available to us, and if that is the Steem.DAO proposal, then that is what we will use. If you agree with the proposal, it still helps to head over to the Steem.DAO and give it a vote. The more users who do vote on it, the more it becomes clear that support is truly broad. If you do not agree with the proposal then please comment on this article and publish posts clearly stating and outlining your position.
Technical Difficulty
The technical difficulty of this change is quite low because the power down rate is set when the user begins powering down. Currently, when the user begins powering down, the amount they select is divided by 13, and then every week 1/13th of that amount is distributed to the user. To implement this change, all that would be needed is to change that number from 13 to 4. Therefore, this change could be implemented without significantly delaying the SMT hardfork.
Existing power downs would continue on their existing 13 week track, but all new power downs would be for 4 weeks. If you want your existing power down to complete in 4 weeks, it is as simple as cancelling the existing power down and starting a new one! In December of 2016 we reduced the power down time from 104 weeks to 13 weeks. We would follow that pattern and have a high degree of confidence in the simplicity of this change.
Inherent Risk
When it comes to hardfork suggestions, one of our primary concerns is whether the suggested change poses a risk to the security of the chain, or the users of it. We would quantify the risk of this change as “very low.” It is a simple change, that we have done before, and would have limited second order or “knock on” effects. It is, however, a change and any change can have unforeseen consequences.
Economic Risk
The largest potential risk factors are likely in the economic sphere. Will this encourage investment or discourage it? We are not able to assess whether the potential economic upside is worth the potential economic downside, combined with the risk of unforeseeable consequences.
Security Risk
An implicit feature of Steem Power is that it time locks funds. If your account were to be compromised, it takes a week for some of your Steem Power to even be available to the attacker and 13 weeks for them to access it all. By reducing the power down time, an attacker could have access to a larger portion of your funds after just 7 days.
For these reasons, it is imperative that you make your voice heard whether it’s by voting on the proposal, or encouraging others to vote on the proposal and/or post on Steem about their opinion. We’ll continue to release communications about this change so that you can make an informed decision.
Vote!
You can vote on proposals from the Steemit Wallet https://steemitwallet.com/proposals.
We want to give a special thanks to @thecryptodrive for proposing this change and using the Steem.DAO to quantify support.
The Steemit Team
I'm not a fan. As a witness I wouldn't vote against the SMT proposal because this is included, but I think it's bad for the network to change it. Part of what makes Steem a community is that people can't just up and leave. If you have steem powered up you're going to be a part of this place for 13 weeks. I think it's part of why steem has a culture of "we all go to the same moon," as opposed to "sorry suckers that token is going up slightly faster so I'm leaving." It happens anyway, but there's a bunch of people that'll post here up until the blockchain flatlines.
I do think it's a real concern to speculators that people can't get their money out quickly. That answer is simple. Buy Steem, nut don't power up. The question I see is does it hurt investment? My guess is that there's more problems seeing the utility of Steem and getting in and out is a tiny side show. So, rather than rush a "simple fix" that I believe will hurt the community let's move it until after the hardfork and make it a burn case.
In a different version of this, Steem still has a 13 week powerdown, but you can burn some of the steem you would otherwise get if you wanted it to happen faster. Adds a burn case for steem, doens't hurt the community, and is a step closer to investor/trader friendliness.
In the larger scope of things I don't think a minor tweak of this property will drastically change things for the better. What will change things for the better is adding apps, usecases, businesses, and communities of people that are able to use Steem to make money, make a point, grow an audience, play a game, or some way that this place adds more value to their life than having dollars in a bank account does.
I'm mildly in favor of the 4 weeks. I don't think it is that big a deal either way. But I do strongly disagree with this:
What makes a strong community is that people can leave but choose not to. They renew their ties every day when they decide to stay. A "community" where people can't leave is a cult or a prison.
Fully agree with that. We are not in a bank system where we have to beg to have back our money... Why not put in place something similar to tezos where you need to wait 1 month before your delegation or power up here starts to produce interest. Like that people are free to have back all their money when they want it but they have also reason to avoid power down
Amen to this:
Dear @smooth I have been targeted by @buildawhale and he is downvoting my posts to nothing . I have posted here on steemit every day since I joined steemit in July 2016 and invested a lot of money in this and if this sort of thing is allowed to continue then steemit will never recover .
Here is what I wrote him to ask him to stop and then I will show you his response .
To @buildawhale
I do not post anything offensive and do not bother anyone .
Please leave me alone or I will power down and leave Steemit as so many others have done from these " down voting plagues."
As you well know, Steemit is declining in active accounts . As long as this type of down voting continues , Steemit has no chance of ever returning to its former glory .
It is beyond my understanding as to why you want to destroy Steemit .
Who in their right mind would ever put any money in Steemit when someone like you can come along and destroy their investment ?
I have invested money and time in this and the money was before people could down vote someone and not use some of their own voting power to do the down vote . Just look what has happened to the active accounts since the last hard-fork : I hate to say this , but If Steemit does not fix this soon , this site is doomed.
Remember the Golden Rule : " Do unto others as you would have them do unto you " . Would you really want someone with millions of Steem Power to down vote your posts to oblivion ? I think not .
And here was his response
Yeah, that's problem.
You don't do anything. You are just a mini-Haejin.
What happened after the last hardfork is that the long-running decline in active accounts, posts, etc. slowed down a bit, but not dramatically. Recently some measures of activity have been on a bit of a rebound, though it is probably too soon to say how significant or sustainable it might be.
I'm not and can't be responsible for how someone else votes.
@smooth thank you for your reply
The instant power down concept, regardless of the cost/burn, destroys the security feature altogether. A hacker won't care about burning 5% or 20% or even 50%. Anyone who is hacked will lose all their funds instantly.
Also, proposing that people invest without powering up is ignoring the cumulative cost of Steem's high inflation. If you are day trading you don't care about inflation, but few serious longer-term investors can (or will) really accept an extra 8% per year for the "privilege" of investing in Steem, especially over a longer term holding period. That would be like paying an 8%/year management fee, which is almost unheard of.
You are spot on! At such as high rate, its ridiculous and a major tax on people.
Respectfully, I find your arguments to keep long term SP contradictory for what you and Steem in general stand for. On one hand we want to give power back to people, on the other force them to lock up their funds. Doesn’t make sense. SP should be eliminated and Steem alone in the wallet can be used in a similar fashion as SP. Let the free market decide if people keep Steem here or take it to exchanges. Justifying 13 week SP with the purpose of keeping people and their funds here sounds authoritarian.
Sure people say if you want luxury of staying liquid you can do so, but that doesn’t make sense. Why would anybody be interested in buying and keeping liquid steem when inflation dilutes the value of steem and doesn’t let them participate in the economy in a meaningful way.
Perhaps its time to give the options for people to set the parameters as they like. If security is the concern, increase the lock up time for savings.
I don’t think Steem continuing to play a central bank kind of role is beneficial. Anything that lowers the power of witnesses and gives more power to users regarding funds would make steem more attractive as an investment. Until then we/steem will be stuck in this semi-centralized/semi-decentralized limbo.
I've made this exact point repeatedly in various witness chats. It seems to me like a natural subject for the next fork post SMTs anyways. First to simplify things in the face of multiple new tokens that will otherwise be a mouthful for new users to wrap their heads around an already complicated platform. Second to judge whether or not inflation-derived rewards from stake-based voting should continue to exist on the main token once SMTs are here.
An ideal situation would look something like this: Steem Power and the STEEM savings account are both removed completely. You simply hold STEEM in your wallet. It can either be liquid (default) or locked for a specific time period. Carrying out actions that require the use of resource credits, or casting witness votes, will necessarily lock the required STEEM to be granted those resources, or the stake that you decide to support a witness with, for a given amount of time (to avoid abuse of resource credits by people who could otherwise swap STEEM from one account to another and take up the available bandwidth). Users can then also themselves lock their STEEM for any given amount of time specified by themselves as a means to add security.
This would simplify things by several orders of magnitude for any new user coming to Steem and wondering what they need to do in order to participate, and what is up with all these different names for basically the same token.. It would also allow for flexibility in terms of different users with a different wish for security versus liquidity being able to choose what they want without us needing to find a "middle ground" which in the end doesn't satisfy anyone.
Finally, we would not have this childish term "Steem Power", which may be cool for an SMT used in a gaming community, but isn't fit to describe the main resource powering an "enterprise-grade" blockchain.
Obviously, this requires a serious rework and a lot of discussions, which is why I believe it deserves its own fork rather than being lumped in with the long awaited SMT fork.
I like your ideas. I hope you will be able convince other witnesses. After SMTs Steem as a currency will have to take a different role to power the larger economy which may require better liquidity and flexibility for participants. I think Steem wallet is one of the best features of Steem, and removing SP would unleash its true power.
I agree with aggroed. But I am also a fan of a way to instantly power down + burn 5% as a fee to do so. Creates a sink, liquidity and is good for large investors who don’t want to be locked in a speculative asset with no way out for 13 weeks. I don’t like the idea of a 1 month power down as it does nothing for anyone. A month is still too long for a large investor to YOLO on(power up) and dosent satisfy a way to get out instantly.
That's a really interesting idea but doesn't change the fact that in case your account got hacked, with a shorter power down period the attacker could get a bigger portion of your STEEM before you would have the chance to change your keys.
Maybe 2 FA should be implemented in the long run.
Maybe there could be the option to determine save withdrawal addresses (white listed addresses)?
Also, wouldn't it be possible that every account holder had the option in his own account to either select a 4 or 13 week power down?
Absolutely. And keep in mind that 4 weeks and 13 weeks are random numbers. They have no meaning and the powerdown period in the future should be far more dynamic than that.
ideally I would like the option to extend PD for certain long term savings accounts and have others in 4 weeks etc, but I don't see that being possible for this HF due to complexity, 4 week only is a simple number change.
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.
But on the long term, I prefer the solution @therealwolf proposes with differentiated interest benefits, based on the duration of committed power up. With the possibility to have different "deposits" with different interests, kinda like at the bank. That doesn't exclude the possibility of implementing both.
Both are not the kind of easy fixes Steemit expects, like changing "13" with "4". Both will require some work and some code auditing afterwards, especially since we are dealing with wallet code changes.
Anything is possible however if you take a look at the original post here, you will see that the change to 4 weeks is only being considered for the upcoming hardfork because the code change is trivial and low risk:
Of course it is possible to discuss any other sorts of changes such as configurable power down time, but not within the context of something that is feasible to deploy soon.
Yes, @steemitblog wrote it was easy to implement, but the reasoning for considering it is also that there was support for that idea within the community:
What I meant with "interesting idea" is the suggestion of @theycallmedan to burn a certain percentage of the STEEM always if anybody wants to initiate such a faster power down. So if one could fulfill the necessary security requirements (or if some people - I am not one of them - by their own choice optionally could accept a somewhat higher risk in exchange for a faster power down) that could be an interesting instrument to reduce the inflation of STEEM.
Thinking the idea to burn STEEM (whenever possible) is interesting doesn't mean I was supportiing the proposal for a shorter power down period (currentIy I am not).
Sorry, in case it wasn't clear I was answering the question in your last paragraph:
by pointing out that, yes, it is certainly possible, but not possible within the constraints set forth for the current hard fork. It would have to go into a future one, probably in six months to a year. For this one, the options under consideration are simply 4 weeks or 13 weeks.
Your other ideas (2FA, whitelists, etc.) are also very good ones which should be considered in the future.
I like the idea of white addresses to which I can get (this solves all security problems) speculators move the price in markets around the world, so we need them like air !!! 100%
I dont like the idea of a burn. I dont see any benefit for Steem to do that.
Burn means Steem is not a valuable resource, otherwise it would be a donation for instant powerdown to Steem DAO.
If you need to burn token the design of the token is bad.
One of the reasons for the high bitcoin price is its scarcity, whereas STEEM still has a rather high inflation. In my opinion burning some STEEM helps to curb the negative effect of inflation on the value of STEEM - at least for now.
dont get me wrong but with onboarding and more usecases we get the same effect in a more sexy way.
Steem is not Bitcoin.
If we remove current SBD from rewarding and make a Version like DAI out of it, we have the same effect beacause Steem get lockt up and less ( not control able) inflation.
And nice site effects like a real scalable 1$ pegged Coin on Steem.
I think things should be build for longterm and not for shortterm.
Nobody is going to lock up coins knowing they have to take a 5% cut to get out quicker than 13 weeks, that's a losing proposition with Steem.
And you're wrong, a 1 month power down does more than "nothing" for true investors. Maybe you need a little more time in crypto to understand things before speaking about them.
How about an internal exchange SP to STEEM .... I believe this was mentioned before
if someone compromises my account (somehow) the 5% burn for instant power down would be the last thing I want available
for hackers 10% ok too :D
Can you elaborate?
Instant powerdown or 4 weeks are only if opt in.
Like:
" You want a less secure account and 4 weeks Powerdown press here (owner key required)"
Same with Instant Powerdown with fee.
But i would say the fee goes to DAO. So if the price pump DAO gets more funds, or use it for account tokens for onboarding.
useless burns would change nothing.
Good idea!!! But the fee should better be 30% for the instant power down instead of 5%!
That burn feature is a nice idea. It seems like its a flavor of the HEX token's "emergency unstake" feature, but yeah, would be good to see that option.
I don't think either of those metrics is appreciably affected by the contemplated difference in powerdown time.
Again, the difference in powerdown time makes little difference. That there is a lockin at all probably is far more relevant.
A while back I made an error that enabled a hacker to swipe all my liquid. Had there been no lockin I certainly would have lost all my SP as well. This was revelatory to me, and has moderated my opinion, which was previously completely opposed to the lockin. I see it more as a security measure now LOL. This brings me to the fee for faster powerdowns. It seems to me the security aspect of the powerdown time is obviated by that potential, as hackers would certainly be willing to burn as necessary to make a quick cash grab. Therefore I do oppose that.
Beyond that, I reckon your judgment far superior to mine in this regard. I have far too often demonstrated my ignorance disagreeing with you =p
Thanks!
All of this. The answer is to change nothing about how this works now, because it is a security mechanism.
I agree with @aggroed. Also +5% burn for instant power down. But considering potential compromise from instant burn to powerdown as highlighted by @smooth, can we setup up a max cap for instant power down ? For instance maximum of 10%(TBD) of your SP can be instantly powered down with 5% burn with cool down time of 30 days for the next use thus if you want to use another instant powerdown you need to pass 30days from the last instant powerdown date.
Time to time people will need some urgency of liquid funds in their life regardless of how much they love about steem. Life is no guarantee. ;)
Agreed on almost all points. Even if we did want to change, the change should be much more conservative. From 13 to 10 weeks, for example.
Make incremental changes, observe results, and make further changes if necessary.
Ya, 4 is a big jump from 13.
"Part of what makes Steem a community is that people can't just up and leave". This is a good thing? So we will just keep other people's coins locked so they can't go? Why don't we increase it back to 104 weeks? Who cares about small users here on steemit when whales are the ones that are controlling everything.
Let the users decide if they want to stay or go. Create a better environment and they will definitely stay longer.
Its a good thing when people have consented to it. Know anything about certificates of deposit? Locking your USD gets you more USD, because it is good for other people. In Steem you agree to lock up your STEEM for "powers" and it benefits others because you do it. This is a consensual relationship, you agreed to have your STEEM locked up, so don't go around calling it an attack on free will.
But the thing is that people NEVER leave when the token is going up in value, at most they sell a small part of their stake.
People leave only when the price is going down, way down. And this bear market has proved that people still powerdown, it doesn't keep them in.
At the same time, we are not allowing investors to panic sell. I know it's counter intuitive but we want them to panic sell so that they get rid of most of their stake at the lowest price possible.
Removing the powerdown will allow us to take a big punch whenever price capitulation happens and then recover quickly.
However, with this powerdown in place, selling pressure remains throughout a bear market, and that's a big part of why Steem fell in ranking on coinmarketcap.
Let the weak hands leave quickly so that they get replaced by strong hands quickly.
What needs fixing is the price of steem more than anything else, so let's take this into consideration and make it an instant powerdown, or make it an option (in case someone still wants the security it provides).
You're wrong here. People do dump during a bull market, smart whales do. Imagine who this benefits most. It helps whales dump on the market and get out as price rises. This is not good for the little people that don't realize that their STEEM's value is about to plummet over night as a massive sell wall gets created. Giving whales this power will result in the inevitable death of Steem and leave poor people poorer.
Whales dump only part of their stake. If they dump everything, the coin will clearly stop going up in price.
That is one of the things we need to be cautious of. How can we know that certain whales are not pushing this 4 week shift because they want to dump everything and leave everyone else will greatly devalued STEEM? We wouldn't know until it was too late. 13 weeks on the other hand slows a whale's ability to dump all of their coins.
If they dump at this price then it's the best thing that could happen to steem. We are near all time lows.
"We all go to the same moon"??? Are you fucking serious??? What is this kumbaya bullshit?? This is fucking crypto, not some bullshit furry forum.
Burning wouldn't be required if there were actual use cases for Steem. The fact that we have to "burn" tokens is fucking absurd. Do you see ANY other LEGIT project doing that? No.
It just makes Steem look like the amateur playground it is.
Token burning has been used by too many crypto projects to even name. I can't believe, you're not aware of this, bernie/nextgencrypto. And why are you using such a lesser known identity for your posting of this?
Because I was on that account doing some voting and didn't care enough to change accounts, not that it matters.
Any of the token burning you're referring to that has been successful was planned in advance and not used as a way to try to bandaid a broken system. I can't believe you're not aware of this, but, those weren't Larimer coins...
Just look at how Stellar did their burning...did nothing for their coin.
"Part of what makes Steem a community is that people can't just up and leave."
You've created a prison, not a community.
"Came for the rewards, stayed for the,... wait.. no.. we're being held hostage."
lol
There you go!
Saying a 13 week power down is a "prison" is like calling a business contract a prison. People can't say they are being forced when they knew the terms to an agreement before hand and then agreed to participate.
You're on Steem, which means that you are a willing participant. No one is forcing you to be here, and no one is forcing you to write or curate on Steem. So, you have consented to the 13 week staking system because you decided you wanted to participate in the game mechanics of Steem.
Exactly.
People should be able to leave and stay as they please. You shouldn't force someone to wait 13 week just to leave the platform or even for legit business to get their earnings faster. If steem here to stay , time will tell. if not, this might just hasten the destruction of steem. Steem needs more value to attract more people using it.
@aggroed if i want power but also be liquid i can lease Steem, where is the problem....
So i spend some Steem for a delagtion and big part can be liquid.
Easy wallet creation is a bigger problem. Because i dont care as a investor about power down, if i dont have a wallet right?
I’d vote for the burn over a change to the actual power down schedule. Good idea @aggroed
Sorry I didn't realize you had already touched on this. I think a 10% burn fee to power down faster would be a good idea if they decided to move forward with this.
I agree... it also gives the larger share-holders the ability to negatively affect the value of Steem by powering down more rapidly.
That is what I think too
Thumbs up to Instant power down for a fee. This is crypto and let's not try and be communists. Give people the right to choose to exit. This is fundamental.
It's not about communism. People can exit under the current system. The delays in place are a strong protection for active participants in the system. People who just want to speculate can hold their funds in an unpowered state, probably on an exchange, where their safety (or lack thereof) is determined by the exchange anyways. But active voters (powered up participants) are responsible for their own funds, and the powerdown delay has saved many people from losing all their funds.
.
Could you clarify exactly whose incompetence you're referring to here? Are you saying new users are incompetent for losing their funds? Or do you mean that devs are not competent enough to make this change, but are afraid it's technically difficult, so are hiding behind this as an excuse? Because if the latter, it should be pointed out that devs have already said this is an easy change to make, from a technical perspective.
Safety is often used to sell something to the ignorant while keeping other agendas private.
Strongly Agree. We feel that what is more important now is SMTs, launch them, and then promote them. SMTs are of great value. We visited a lot of community owners in China and they really wanted something like this. But at the same time, they need simpler settings and a better client experience.
I agree with your last ideas. We have to come up with something that creates value more than the bank does. Day by day my steam account value is decreasing. If some step do not took than soon my account will come in pennies.
People who really care about posting they must get the worth instead getting pennies. People who's videos is watched they are getting pennies. It not like Youtube that as much you watch that much promotion is done of your videos.
We have to come up with innovation and good ideas that creates the value of steem.
Regarding power down, I think those who want money they anyways going to get in 13 weeks or 4 weeks, they will do it. People who want to remain invested and grow they will remain. But how long, they also worth their money which is invested or earned hard way.
Few days back I have posted blog about how to increase Why STEEM Value Decreasing! Ideas to increase Steem Value steem and I got only nine votes and not a penny I earned. This shows nobody cares about steem value. Everybody wants money and saving their precious upvote and comments.
If something is not done soon than according to calculation after 20 days Steem value will be $0.01 and after 91 days steem dollar value will be $0.01.
I can help, let discuss ways and ideas and contribute to beat facebook and youtube. I am not against them but I am with people. Instead Facebook and Youtube earns let we people earn.
There are many ways to increase steem value. We can introduce Dai crypto in steem. And many more. Let discuss in Why STEEM Value Decreasing! Ideas to increase Steem Value
To listen to the audio version of this article click on the play image.
Brought to you by @tts. If you find it useful please consider upvoting this reply.
Please note, there are now two proposals issued to obtain proper community sentiment IN FAVOUR or AGAINST the 4 Week Power Down change.
PROPOSAL IN FAVOUR:
https://steemit.com/steemdao/@thecryptodrive/hf-proposal-vote-to-reduce-power-down-period-to-4-weeks
PROPOSAL AGAINST:
https://steemit.com/steemdao/@thecryptodrive/hf-proposal-vote-against-reducing-power-down-period-to-4-weeks
Note that it is my understanding that this is voting for this change in isolation, without considering other changes that might mitigate the effects of this change.
I'm temporarily upvoting this comment for visibility...
First time I see a comment on the trending page.
I know you love 13-weeks pd, but have you considered that 4-week pd may generate more business for blocktrades as an exchange? Give 4-weeks a try. :)
I don't have that huge a problem with 4 weeks itself, I'd just like more consideration to be given to a more comprehensive solution than just changing a single parameter. In particular, as I've mentioned elsewhere, I'm pretty sure this will result in people losing more money due to phishing attacks that obtain their keys. There are many web services that require entry of Steem account keys and this means people get use to using them without enough care.
On balance, as an isolated change made now, I think the disadvantages outweigh the advantages of this change.
I haven't really given much consideration to if the change would bring BlockTrades more business in the short term, but I'm afraid that increased financial losses by Steem holders from hacks would result in bad publicity and would be worse for the long term value of Steem (of which I hold a lot). So I'd prefer to wait for a more considered method of making such a change, before endorsing it.
These are similar to my feelings as well. I simply don't think the suspected pros outweigh the suspected cons for this change personally.
I would suggest to determine the length of power down via the Reputation score of each user. For example Rep. 25-50 should have 13 weeks, Rep.51-60 could be 8 weeks and everything above Rep. 61 has the option to power down within 4 weeks.
This would also help to encourage users to ramp up their Rep score and therefore boost activity on the chain.
Someone who has Rep.61 is less likely to be scamed here on Steem because he has proven to be around for some time.
What do you think about this?
Maybe instead of getting 1/4 of your funds each week, it should be rewritten so you get 100% of funds after 4 weeks. That way people have 1 month to figure out they have been hacked. Isn’t that the maximum amount of time anyway if someone resets the master password? Then the risk of hack is the same as now and you still have a 4 week power down for faster fund recovery.
Yes, that' s one possible solution, especially if combined with some change to the UIs like steemit/esteem/steempeak to make it more prominent when an account is doing a powerdown, so that owner will be alerted.
Plz follow me
Do you not need his help anymore? That’s good!
Plz follow me plz help me
Wowww, I didn't notice this was a comment till you mentioned it! I didn't even know this was possible. I thought Steem trending API filtered comments out. Seems like not, or maybe it just hadn't happened before that a comment was more valuable than posts in votes.
It's actually normal, and probably happens more than you think. I've seen a number of comments that hit trending. There's even been discussions of whether they should be filtered or not there.
4 week power down will allow people to more easily uninvest in Steem. Having been the crypto space for four years now, I have witnessed how the mass of people behave. Money now, consequences later.
Steem is already struggling to get people to invest in it. Making it easier to withdraw is not going to encourage people to invest.
Do you want to see the price of Steem plummet to near nothing? Vote for four week power down.
Of course lower power down time will make Steem a more attractive investment.
Flaw in your argument is that you are assuming lower pd time will cause more selling. Just having that option doesn’t mean more selling. Sellers will sell and holders will hold under any conditions.
This change would only give more flexibility and confidence for those who would want to invest. Those who prefer shorter pd time aren’t necessarily short timers.
It is experience in the crypto world that has taught me the speculation comes before HODL.
I was here in Steemit from the beginning. I've seen the way it has worked and not. How many Hard Forks are we up to now in an attempt to stop people gaming the system?
Investment will come when there is a clear vision and utility for Steemit. So far @Ned and his company have failed to deliver on that. How long have we been waiting for SMT? After all these years with no major advancements, you expect investors to get onboard? The largest investor was @ned and his company (whale) who last year started dumping their holdings when the crypto market tanked. If they won't continue to invest, who will?
Investors = speculators.
Steem is not Steemit, and Ned is out of the picture for a while. But I understand what you are saying. If you look at Steem from a startup point of view yes investors evaluate the leadership and the companies before investing. However, Steem is not a company, just like the internet doesn't belong to anybody.
You are wrong. Speculating is short term, investing is long term.
And where are the investors now? If they don't see the value in it now, a shorter power down period isn't going to bring them back or bring new ones.
Exactly, Steem.Inc, @ned and his team are not Steemit, but they were the biggest investors (Steem holders). What did they do? They dumped. Did they put the interests of the community before their own? No. Imagine if they had the 4 week power down back then instead of the 13 week. Take a look at the Steem price chart. It has never recovered.
This post from @lordbutterfly is an excellent review of how things work around here when there are "investors" in the platform. They don't invest for the community or the platform, they invest for themselves, otherwise it would be a donation for a charity.
https://steemit.com/steem/@lordbutterfly/2-year-anniversary-post-steem-has-changed
As I said, experience has informed my position.
Well, it now seems that Steem is owned by somebody, Justin Sun, who colluded with major exchanges such as Binance and Poloniex, using Steem from user's exchange wallets to replace all top witnessess and vote in 20 new block producers / witness to stop a softfork. The softfork would have limited the control that Justin Sun (owner of Tron) would have over the network after buying @Ned's share, which might have still been 20% of the total Steem in the network.
So instead of a 4 week power down, it will now be a three day power down.
I also recommend this article as to what this means.
https://steemit.com/hive-177682/@neoxian/the-bank-of-neoxian-final-report
The internet is owned, and control of that is concentrating into fewer and fewer hands with more and more censorship. You may argue there are always around this... if you have the technical know how, but most internet users have a difficult time daily computer usage. These sort of people rely upon the Domain Registrars to navigate their way around the internet. These are all commercial companies, and thus owned.
One of the reason someone in the actual 'investor class' doesn't jump into steem is because doing so, requires a long vested period (13 weeks). A 4 week powerdown would make steem more attractive, though still concerning.
4 or 13 weeks, people who want to get out, already can get out. Shorter time wouldn't have much of an effect on the price from that perspective over even a few months timescale. It may cause a short dip initially though.
!BEER
View or trade
BEER.Hey @justtryme90, here is a little bit of
BEERfrom @eii for you. Enjoy it!Learn how to earn FREE BEER each day by staking.
See my comment / reply to @geekgirl, it also covers your reply.
https://steemit.com/steem/@geekgirl/q4u9ae#@leoplaw/q54bty
Dear @blocktrades I have been targeted by @buildawhale and he is downvoting my posts to nothing . I have posted here on steemit every day since I joined steemit in July 2016 and invested a lot of money in this and if this sort of thing is allowed to continue then steemit will never recover .
Here is what I wrote him to ask him to stop and then I will show you his response .
To @buildawhale
I do not post anything offensive and do not bother anyone .
Please leave me alone or I will power down and leave Steemit as so many others have done from these " down voting plagues."
As you well know, Steemit is declining in active accounts . As long as this type of down voting continues , Steemit has no chance of ever returning to its former glory .
It is beyond my understanding as to why you want to destroy Steemit .
Who in their right mind would ever put any money in Steemit when someone like you can come along and destroy their investment ?
I have invested money and time in this and the money was before people could down vote someone and not use some of their own voting power to do the down vote . Just look what has happened to the active accounts since the last hard-fork : I hate to say this , but If Steemit does not fix this soon , this site is doomed.
Remember the Golden Rule : " Do unto others as you would have them do unto you " . Would you really want someone with millions of Steem Power to down vote your posts to oblivion ? I think not .
And here was his response
awsome..:)
I don’t see why we need to fix something that isn’t broken, I think the risks increase exponentially and the rewards, of any, will be minimal. I think our main focus should be Attracting new users (and users who left, no one talks about that), and showing how steem is more than just steemit. As well as making signup easier if possible, I know we’ve already had many changes on that front
There will be never an overwhelmingly consensus on any decision. I like the @blocktrades idea of two proposals to contest with each other. Let the democracy win on the blockchain governance. I think the against proposal is little bit late on the party. However, there is enough time before HF23 to take vote on against proposal. Moreover, both parties can campaign for or against the proposals to solicit votes. Let us see the how governance work on @steem.DAO.
I am campaigning for 4 weeks proposal ;)
im in for this
Supported.
SteemKick is a web-based DApp where the player has to predict the outcome of a Penalty kick. In SteemKick , player can also participate in a multiplayer tournament by staking a certain amount of STEEM token.
NB: SteemKick is a prototype to Penalty Predict, which is the first game on our TRON Blockchain based decentralized gaming hub, Tronstrike Gaming.
Please keep the community updated in multiple ways, congrats
I'm against this. The thing I dislike about it most is that it enables more funds to be lost from a one week powerdown by a hacker. It would be one thing if this was just a theoretical concern, but we know this happens quite often due to the many phishing attacks combined with all the new, inexperienced users joining Steem for the first time.
I agree with aggroed as far as the investment issue goes: if someone just wants to speculate in the coin, they can just avoid powering up (and indeed many such investors probably just keep their Steem on an exchange anyways, so that they can sell it at a moment's notice).
I don't think the current powerdown time is a big commitment for someone who wants to actively participate in the voting system and the mechanism creates some "solidity" to voter identity (someone can't just move around some poweredup funds quickly and vote "anonymously").
If it was 13 weeks before any funds could be obtained, I would probably feel differently on this issue. But with access to 1/13 after one week, I think the current system is sufficient.
In summary, I don't see any likely value-add from this change, and I think Steem holders who get hacked will lose more money as a result of this change.
I'm with @blocktrades on this one, 13 weeks is just right <3 if you don't like it ... don't power up :D really easy ;)
Yeah, that's what I don't get. If you're going to speculate, and you don't want to keep funds on an exchange, it's perfectly natural to want to transfer the liquid funds to a wallet. But it's not very likely for them to power up. I don't think the power-down schedule crosses a speculator's mind in any way.
If there's any barrier to speculation, it's the lack of wallet addresses, not the power-down schedule. Adding these wallet-only accounts would probably be less trivial to shoehorn into the next hardfork, though.
100% True!
Yeah really the only reason the 4-week proposal was even seriously considered is for the upcoming fork it being a simple parameter change. That doesn't make a good idea necessarily, but it does make it feasible.
There are other ways to earn on Steem than speculating, dlease.io for example. As someone who isn't any good at trading, makes more sense for me to power up and take advantage of this investment option at circa 14% pa returns (higher previously), as an investor doesn't make sense to power up more and lock up for long periods, especially if one can lose out on STEEM hitting an ATH again and you miss that because your funds are all locked up.
Does the possibility 14% ROI directly rely on the fact that people who lease need to curate in order for them to ROI?
Or they need to do something else that relies on some kind of inflation mechanism?
Not that there's anything wrong with that, but if there was no inflation mechanism in play, there wouldn't be a possibility of 14%, right?
How about 130 weeks instead of 13? 1300?
This is a major non-concern that relies on making the case that people are dumb and cant manage their funds so their Steem must be locked for longer.
Thats painfully stupid and shortsighted. You want your community to participate more in trading. Those that believe most in STEEM are the ones that will create upward pressure on the price since they are more likely to buy in. Having only speculators, which we do now, that only simply follow BTC price movement is what is screwing us.
Fear-mongering over a very unlikely occurrence makes for a very poor argument.
Ok, you make several arguments, so let's start at the beginning (hopefully I address most of them):
No, I'm making the case that most people won't do this, either from inexperience, laziness, or the mistaken belief that it seems you share that this form of hacking doesn't happen often in Steem. I think it's easy to make this case from observed data alone.
As support for the above argument, you also point out "There are hundreds of tokens with no staking". This is quite true, but most often these coins don't share an important characteristic of Steem: in Steem, users often use their keys in many web-based dapps. This is because Steem is truly more of a utility/dapp token than most coins, which are generally more for financial transfers. This is really a cool feature of Steem, but it also means Steem users are more exposed to phishing attacks than many other coins.
I'm not arguing for having more speculators, I'm only arguing that it is feasible to speculate on Steem without powering up SP (and hence keeping liquidity of purchased Steem). Now while it doesn't sound like you want speculators, some do, and complained on this point, so I was addressing how speculation was still possible.
In this case, I think you're making a poor argument by labeling this "fear-mongering" as some kind of perjorative. This is a real thing, that happens quite often in Steem. Maybe I see it more because people complain to us when their funds are stolen. But it's not that hard to find many people who have posted about losing funds from their accounts due to these phishing attacks.
After reading @blocktrades, I’ve changed my mind and see his point(s).
We are, here, presumably for the long run (it’s been over two years, for me).
Hoping our many investments in this platform, including our valuable time & money, continue to be rewarding.🙏🏼
i agree, think in a lot of people who will loses their account, i remember the legendary @surfermarly who was hacked, well this 13 weeks protect our investment fron a direct atack i am not agree with the changued from 13 to 4 weeks.
Stolen account recovery change to 4 weeks same as powering down time that could be a solution !?
No, because this rule would change "how quickly" funds are lost. Currently, if a user doesn't notice his account has been hacked until the first powerdown hits (1 week), he loses 1/13 of this SP. Under this new rule, he would lose 1/4 in one week. Similarly, in two weeks, he would lose 1/2 of his SP under the new rule, versus 2/13ths under the current rule.
I got your point but for somehow we could improve the rule a bit to protect the sp on each week of powering down such as moving straight to the saving box or freeze it for 2-3 weeks or we could get a notification from phone/mail when some1 starts powering down and also moving it out of the saving box. There are many better ways than mine to get this done with the 4 weeks power down. The thing that if you still want to go against it, you never want to think about any new rules to help it out.
No, I do think about such new rules, and if we come up with a set of rules that solves this problem, I'd be fine with a change to the powerdown time.
But this post by the Steemit devs isn't proposing to make a bunch of such changes, it's proposing that we make one isolated change and it's asking for our feedback on that single change. I'm expressing my opposition to this single change without adequate other changes to compensate for its effect on funds security.
Designing a set of rule changes that fixes the potential security problem and implementing that set would take longer than what is being proposed for the hardfork. But I think this post is a fine place to discuss such ideas, and I don't intend my comments to in any way stifle such a discussion.
I got ya ! I just missed the purpose of this post !
You completely ignore market dynamics.
Not allowing investors to panic sell at the bottom is the single worst thing for the price of steem. It's the reason we perform worse than other coins in bear markets (Yes, a bigger reason than inflation).
I have repeated this argument way too many times without it being read to be bothered to explain it again.
Edit - here's the link to a better explanation: https://steemit.com/hive-100421/@marki99/marki99-re-theycallmedan-zfjdulsk-20200118t114054566z
I don't completely ignore market dynamics nor do I need to read your post to understand your idea.
Seriously, it's kind of silly to think that such ideas haven't been thought about by many people who have been in this coin for many years and hold large stakes in it. But it should also be pointed out that such ideas are just opinions about human behavior and don't form any kind of really solid science.
So if everyone knows how on earth are we not acting on it?
Yes, it’s not science but no argument in the powerdown discussion is scientific. It’s all based on predictions, investor behavior, security concerns of people.
As you are one of the biggest stakeholders on the platform, I hope you will come to the conclusion that the priority is the price of steem, and that it can be helped a lot by allowing instant powerdowns.
Judging from the rest of your SPS votes we agree on pretty much everything else.
I believe that the most fun time using Steem/Steemit was during 2nd half of 2017 to 1st half of 2018. Especially in the Korean community, there were loads of famous people/bloggers moved to Steemit during this time. One of my Steemit posts was selected as top 3rd number of views, and it was pretty exciting seeing my Steemit article shared via a variety of platforms outside, attracting other bloggers joining Steemit.
The reason why this time was the most fun is NOT all about the price peak. It was all about the people. Don't get me wrong. I'm not talking about the royal people. It was the time when ALL KIND OF PEOPLE were gathering in Steemit such as royal Steemiana, bloggers, investors, gamblers, abusers, ... It was the most time when there were a huge amount of conflicts, fighting, argument, and so much more things were happening.
I strongly believe that attracting a large number of people who comes from all different backgrounds/needs should be the most important core rather than letting only royal people stay in this place. Why? It's so simple. It gives a fun, more value, more reason to be royal for some people, and more attractive reason to invest on my valuable money and time.
For this reason, I completely agree with the 4-weeks power down period.
p.s.: I invested over $40K my personal money on Steem, powering up, and never power down till now, and the money becomes less than $3K. People who need power down will do anyway regardless of the power down period limitation, and this SHOULDN'T be our core to maintain.
I completely agree with this proposal and reply of @project7 too.
agree 4 weeks power-domn ~gogo~
Are you in favour of this proposal or rather in favor of a dynamic power-down period? Because this proposal will only allow people to choose between 4 and 13 weeks. That's still far too rigid for the diverse culture we have here.
Just making sure I understood this correctly:
You didn't power down, because of the 13 weeks period? Afterwards, you're writing that "people who need to power--down will do that, regardless of the period limitation". Isn't this exactly the opposite of your reasoning?
I agree with the 4 weeks power down period (I'm sorry but I'm not aware of the dynamic power down period you mentioned). Thanks for your comment. I fixed some confusing words.
He should have used a double negative. What he meant is: I did not not powerdown because of the 13 weeks period.
As in, he kept his stake for Steem reasons, not friction reasons.
I completely agree to your opinion.
Posted using Partiko Android
Every change comes with a lot of indirect cost, this change isn't bringing clear and direct benefit. It's a zero sum change, it's not smart enough.
It was suggested that new reward from inflation should stay staked for longer, like 6 months, while purchased one get to power down as usual or faster. The main reason for previous 2 year or 13 weeks delay was so new users get to participate in curation and get to adapt to the ecosystem and the culture.
This is changing for sake of changing and expecting better outcome at random.
IMO it's a ridiculous distraction given the current state of Steem.
True. And change the rules ( like in computer games) have often horrible side effects that destroy a game.
One side note on @thecryptodrive proposal: it is certainly helpful as some rough gauge of sentiment, but it's not exactly a great one, because the SPS was built to distribute funds among competing projects, not to get political consensus on hard forks. Originally, I was thinking it could be useful for that as well, but it clearly doesn't work that way. For example, I can't vote "against" this proposal except by voting for the "refund proposal", which would cutoff real funds being paid to active workers, which I would prefer to avoid.
If we do want to get a better polling of stake-based opinion using the SPS, the solution is to create two proposals: one "for" and one "against" during the same time period, then let voters vote on the two competing proposals. With such a method, it would also be good to set a "determination" date at which the two vote counts would be compared, to measure prevailing opinion. Both proposals should also be created at the same time, to give each opinion equal time to accumulate votes.
At last, someone answered my question and provided a solution just as my temperature was approaching critical. I find this place so confusing!
The for and against convention is a good idea, though I don't think a set "result" date is really needed. The purpose is really to get a 'sense' of stakeholder sentiment and that changes over time too. Even if the 'result date' says one thing, by the time a fork got implemented, deployed and was ready to activate, stakeholder consensus could be different. IMO, if the balance of sentiment is so close that it requires a careful rule to determine the winner, there is no real consensus either way and it probably makes sense to continue working to try to build one.
Yeah I agree with some of the comments about SPS not being an ideal polling system, but it is the best we have and creating something only a little bit better would be a lot of work for a small payoff. It would also risk having even lower participaton by splitting up attention into more and more separate voting systems.
I agree a result date isn't strictly needed, I just think it could be a useful way to have a clear point in time from which to discuss the results, mainly one that is not too early.
As far as consensus changes after that point, I agree they shouldn't be ignored. I almost said similar things in my original comment, so I'm glad you brought this up. Instead of calling it a determination date, maybe it's better to phrase it as an initial consensus date.
"Initial consensus date" makes sense. It is somewhat similar to having a delayed start date on funding, to give people a chance to get votes in place first.
Yes, I also think it's "good enough" with the "two proposal" method. Good enough because a) it's non-binding to begin with and b) because I agree it's not worth the effort to create something better.
@thecryptodrive, would you be willing to make a mirror SPS proposal to your 4-week one, so we could collect stakeholder votes against the change?
IMO it would help reduce confusion to make the proposal look as much like the other one as possible, except being against the change rather than for it.
Clearly the "for" proposal has a head start in terms of gaining votes, but over a bit of time we should be still able to assess the voting to a large extent, even if not perfectly.
I'm am somewhat concerned that without a clear method of voting/polling, the issue will be clouded by: a) people making the most noise in threads being given undue weight relative to stake, and b) the views of people who are less comfortable following and participating in discussions in English not being considered, even if they may have large stake.
yeah sure
Exactly. This system clearly is not designed or effective for voting on whether or not a change should be added to an upcoming HF, or anything else where we are striving for consensus. This is simply tracking whether or not there is enough support for something to get the funding it needs.
Whoever thought of a voting system where you really only get to vote "yes"...
The below mentioned two proposals at least allows for disagreement, but without linking the two proposals, most people would probably only see one of them anyway.
I think the two proposal idea is adequate, if not ideal. It might get messy if there were a really large number of proposals, but with the current number, I think it's a workable method for now.
Agreed, I am not a fan of using the SPS as a polling system. Two proposals would be better, but I think there is still network effects of people who look at the proposals and vote the higher one without even knowing about the lower.
A small tweak could be made, probably even without any blockchain-level changes (only UI), to tag the two proposals as alternatives with some metadata and display them together as such.
We can't upvote/downvote a steemit post?
You can as far as I know.
If you mean position on the steemit.com page, I think not. It's probably locked there as a featured post or sometihing. But only if using steemit.com. With other UIs that's probably not the case.
I was meaning as a way to measure support for proposals.
Downvote if you are against adoption.
There is no downvote against proposals. It was originally envisioned as a funding system and the way it works for funding is everything above the return line gets funded and anything below the return line does not.
Since it is now being used for polls, we have decided to promote a convention where there is one proposal FOR and one AGAINST. An AGAINST proposal was added for the 4-week change, so people who oppose the idea can now vote directly against it.
Good thinking, still seems simpler to use a post instead of a proposal.
Though that would result in autovoting conflicts, I'm sure.
Steem on.
I am AGAINST this proposal!
It would make sense to improve the savings feature BEFORE decreasing the Power Down time.
Care to share any of your ideas on what improving the savings feature would look like?
Couldn't you power up the savings bucket and just strip it of voting rights for witnesses and SPS? That way, if you want help govern the network, you need the 13 week vesting. If you want to jump in and vote folks with your short-term HODL, you can do so with a 3-day power down and at your own risk.
Perhaps another idea would be to adjust Steem Power potency all together to indicate your level of "loyalty" to the protocol.
For example:
5000 STEEM powered up (staked) with a 4 week power down = $0.03 100% upvote
2500 STEEM powered up (staked) with a 8 week power down = $0.03 100% upvote
500 STEEM powered up (staked) with a 40 week power down = $0.03 100% upvote
This could allow for much more equality in distribution of STEEM rewards via smaller holders simply being willing to lock in to the system for longer.
This is one of the better ideas I've heard about this. It's likely having classes of citizenship based on your level of time exposure.
You want to be a full citizen. Stake the thing.
You want to be eligible for rewards, but not have to stake for 13 weeks, ok, but then you don't get to participate in governance.
Yes, but I'd do it a bit more granular. For example:
And here some examples of how the staking duration (power-down period) could affect rewards. (really rough numbers)
I like your ideas about dynamic staking @therealwolf and I would prefer being able to Power Up longer than 1 month.
@therealwolf I would support this, not just throwing a 4 week powerdown through. I would encourage you to write more about this and try to gain support on it. I would certainly (for what it's worth) support, upvote, resteem etc.
I have to echo this sentiment. Let those who want to try out the chain have their short staking and unstaking features.
Let those who wish to have influence on the chain power up and stick around longer.
I would like to be able to Transfer my Steem into Savings for as long as I want as opposed to just 3 days.
(to secure my holdings)
It is a tough question to answer. I think the biggest difficulty with the current savings mechanism is it is such an "opt-in" feature that new people will not think to do it (or even experienced users who haven't yet lost funds via some form of phishing attack).
The nice thing about the powerup mechanism is that it acts as a natural incentive to take this step towards protection of their funds.
I have been on steem for 2 years and I still don't know what the savings feature is supposed to do...
If you have a large chunk of Steem that you wish to keep liquid for whatever reason, keeping it in savings offers the protection of a "mini power down". If your account is compromised, it would take the hacker a few days to get it out, giving you time to secure your account. That is the only practical use I see, but that's not to say I could be missing something..
Exactly. And this could also be potentially improved to accept dynamic inputs. 3 days, 2 weeks, 1 month, etc. Imagine, you're going on a trip for 2 months, and want to make sure that your liquid Steem is safu. Lock it up for 2 months, get some bonus inflation on top of it and voila.
good info..tks
I read your comment where you described the idea of the bonus inflation. I think it's brilliant. I don't really see how a 4 week power down improves speculation value, because there is still a learning curve and extra things an investor will need to do to make efficient return on investment, and we cannot assume all investors are interested in Steem 101. If they are interested in hodling Steem and hodling only, powering up isn't even a necessity.
My biggest concerns are the security implications of a 4 week power down, and in all respects 13 to 4 is quite a massive jump. I understand in the crypto world people refer to this amount of time as "as life time," but what does quick pump and dump investments really offer for the intrinsic value of Steem?
My initial reaction was that this was a good idea, but after thinking about all the implications, and reading the comments, I just can't vote for the proposal.
Now bonus inflation for return, with conditional time allotted lock up.., (Kind of a similar idea as what HEX is doing right?) now that is something I think investors might be attracted to. Nice forward thinking @therealwolf, and thank you for your response here.
never knew that..tks bro
You're welcome bro.
We at @coingecko would advise against commiting to such changes to the core underlying blockchain. The initial proposal for 13 weeks power down was made with a security feature in mind. The aim is to safeguard token holders which as we've seen are clearly not as security-savvy as the typical users of bitcoin or ether, which has the ecosystem to support 3rd party solutions such as custodial wallets or 2nd layer solutions such as brain keys.
It is a dangerous slope to arbitrarily change such time frames, why not 3 weeks? 2? why not follow EOS's 3 days? These will potentially be the questions the community will raise again once this precedence has been set.
From the original post, we understood that the aim of reducing the power down period is to make it more attractive to investors by reducing their risk exposure.
Even so, we would advise the whole community to reevaluate Steem's USP and take into account if reducing lock-in period actually pushes the needle to convince investors to commit their funds.
To make it truly attractive for investors to lock in their funds for X amount of time for a promise of Y returns, we recommend a comparison against the many Masternodes cryptocurrency already in existence.
Here's a nifty filtered list we've prepapred: https://www.coingecko.com/en?category_id=41&view=market