Steemit Power Down Proposal
Hello Steemians, as of now, the proposal to lower the power down period to 4 weeks has 20 million Steem Power backing it, while the proposal not to lower the power down period has around 17 million Steem Power behind it.
Go Steem.DAO!
Before we get into the nitty gritty let’s take a moment to appreciate this cool use for the Steem.DAO. We think one of the best indicators of good design is when a tool doesn’t just serve the intended purpose well, but also serves unforeseen use cases. That’s also why we want to thank @thecryptodrive yet again for his innovative use of the Steem.DAO.
What these proposals demonstrate is that while there is clearly a lot of interest in modifying the power down aspect of Steem, there is no clear consensus on the nature of that change or the urgency, which is not say that this is a topic which should be ignored.
Alternative Approach
That’s why in today’s post we’d like to propose an alternative approach to this problem which we believe would satisfy those who support the proposed changes, while providing a more comprehensive, customizable, and long-term solution to the problem.
What we propose is giving account holders the ability to determine for themselves how long they would like to time lock their funds. The longer the user chooses to lock their funds, the more funds they get to claim from the token inflation which is allocated to Steem Power holders. While this might sound like an escalation from the relatively simple proposed change, we believe it is a superior and worthwhile solution.
Competing Goals
Community members will never agree on what the power down time should be because there are two competing design goals within it. Those that want a shorter power down time want to lower the barrier to entry to Steem, and those that want a longer power down time want to incentivize long term commitment to the ecosystem. Addressing both of these issues would significantly improve Steem’s ability to grow, but the current system cannot satisfy both requirements. Therefore a new system is required.
A Simple Proposal
The system we propose would enable the user to determine for themselves exactly how long they are willing to lock up their STEEM, and would reward them in direct proportion to that length of time. The longer the user chooses to lock up their Steem, the larger the percentage of the inflation they get.
Not a Design Proposal
This is not a comprehensive design proposal, and many questions still need to be answered. What should the minimum possible time lock be? The current economics of Voting Mana dictate that the shortest possible Steem Power time lock would be 5 days.
That means that a user who chooses this option could lose all of their stake in 5 days if hacked. Is that an acceptable risk? This also does not address what the bonus incentivize should be for those who time lock for longer periods of time or whether there should be a maximum time lock.
Post SMT Hardfork
While we believe this would be a superior change, it is sufficiently complex that in order to incorporate it into the SMT hardfork we would have to delay that project. For that reason, we would recommend waiting until after the SMT hardfork to begin work on this change.
Let us know in the comment section below what you think of our proposal!
The Steemit Team
The Interest from the Steem inflation is so small it offers no incentive to lock your Steem up for longer than the minimum - surely if we allow people to choose their own lock in time, everyone's just going to go for the minimum period?
No. It all depends on the right incentives. Would you be on Steem if you'd earn nothing? Most likely not.
Same goes for powering up. If there are no incentives, then people will go for the minimum required period, but given enough incentives, this is easily changed.
This is going to become a debate about how to weight the incentives for what period of lock-in isn't it?!?
Inevitable I guess!
That's not entirely true...
If let's say the minimum period were 5 days and for locking up SP for that minimum you receive no interest, then there's more interest to share for the rest of users.
If for 4 weeks it's, let's say 0.5%, then again it's less than currently 2% APR, so more for those who stake longer.
This way we can get to something like 5%? for locking stake to 6 months - 1 year?
These are not by all means exact calculations, nor can we have that at this stage.
By all probabilities this may be a dynamic interest rate, which will fluctuate based on how many people choose different staking plans. That's if we want to keep interest at 10% from total inflation, and I don't think that's under discussion.
5% APR, in crypto volatile world, on a inflationary coin... It's nothing. This proposal makes no sense to me.
Instead please allow users to power down quicker for a price of burning part of the tokens - I think this was already proposed by many users.
This is one of the dumbest ideas ive heard and coming from steemit.inc makes me feel that they really lack vision or the capacity to strategically think as to the effects of the change.
This literally does nothing.
Instant power down with burn is not mutually exclusive with progressive power up period. You can make the burn percentage fee scale with the stake duration. For example, 1 week stake has 1% burn fee, 2 week stake has 2% burn fee, etc. This punishes people that fails their long term commitment while still giving them option to exit instantly. The security aspect is discussion for another day though.
I voted for 4 weeks to disconnect - I do not change my opinion.
I'm interested in - how many accounts voted for 4 weeks and how many to leave as is?
It is very important
Does it really matter? It is a stake based procedure anyways...Stake does the talking...
PS. I know what you mean...
People do have a little influence, a tiny bit. Some whales care.
Perhaps its time we started to question the status quo in that regard and have some meaningful discussions about it?
Maybe there are some areas such as witness selection, and proposals for structural change, that would be far more beneficial for the growth of the platform, if a democratic system for making decisions was implemented?
Understandable, but the proposal on the original post will kill the dispute of ideal staking period once and for all so I personally think it's plain better than just a variable change to yet another arbitrary number.
We are not democracy. The number of accounts voting in favor of something doesn't matter.
Then why ask us? Let the whales choose what they want and vote for what they want - but we will stand aside and see how many more people will escape from the platform!
I share your concerns personally. I will note that intelligence may not involve immediate economic benefits, but it is of critical import to economic issues.
The social interactions on Steem are OSINT intelligence mechanisms, in that regard.
Thanks!
As you weigh people's various responses, you can make out a better understanding of situations in general. This helps both big and small stakes to build their opinion. So why ask? To measure the reaction, to learn from people's input, to better understand the human side of the consequences of their actions, etc.
So people with a lot of stake know what people in general (regardless of stake) want? As you said, if opinions of people with smaller stake are straight up ignored we can just leave, degrading the value of the network as a whole, destroying the value of their stake. How are they supposed to know what we want if they don't even ask us?
It's more than 2%. Some people never powered down. For them it's a long term commitment anyway.
^ That's me. I've never powered down. I'd probably go for 6-8 month power down because all my plans are super long term.
All this talk of APR ... we need to embrace the 2020 DEFI trend issued down by illuminati decree
lets make a no loose lottery with SBD and SP
https://cryptobriefing.com/defis-first-no-loss-lottery-raises-million-interest-accrues/
im high but i bet this can work on steem , mix it all together drink it in a big APR milkshake i got those eosio smart contracts and steem engine side contract hype, liquidity, volume, demand. DPOS
Proof ... of... Brain.. Power down your sanity
the wallet is you
I'm not sure I understand any of the concepts you mentioned. Dunno how you can make a no-loss lottery.
I just learned about it yesterday and think we need this on eosio with steem engine with mah steemp steem token that has smart contracts
, theyre simply combining no loss stable coins that earn you guaranteed interest, with lottery tickets.
just look at the article they explain it like this:
it seems like interesting stuff
curation rewards are also a big incentive to hold some steem ....
Yes, especially since the last HF.
I wonder if its technically possible to scale the curation returns dependent on the time period you lock steem in for?
Hello Steemian
Source
Spamming comments is frowned upon by the community. Continued comment spamming may result in the account being Blacklisted.
More Information:
The Art of Commenting
You are right. Give me back a minimum 50% from my vote value and I will Power Up, even for 13 years
Lol, I looked up your SP. I thought I could perhaps vote "half" of your vote value on your comment to force you to power up for 13 years. But you have so much SP :O I can't.
He baselessly claims it is a "ponzi scheme" which just shows that either he doesn't understand how it works or (more likely) he just doesn't understand what a ponzi scheme even is! And the blatant hypocrisy in him trying to fight "vote selling" when that is exactly what he did with his bidbot! As as bidbot owner with over a dozen alt accounts he is in no place to judge what is right or wrong here on Steem. Now he is mad that his scam has ended. So like an upset child, he has decided to take out his anger (caused only by his own failures) on other innocent people. Making him nothing more than a big bully!
MK admits to running a bidbot
Actual account who was "wrecked by @mmmmkkkk311 (for holding sbi shares)"
I am here to counter @mmmmkkkk311's bullying. I will upvote every post/comment that he downvotes. You can support my anti bullying upvotes by delegating (links below) Steem Power to @ilovemk311. And you can help keep this message visible by upvoting this comment or by purchasing SBI shares for @mk311isabully which will help to counter the downvotes that @mmmmkkkk311 will surely send my way. Which I highly encourage him to do as the more downvoting power he wastes on me the less he can use to downvote the real content creators here on Steem that would otherwise become his victims!
Choose a delegation amount
5 | 10 | 20 | 50 | 100 | 500 | 1000
With this jerk bullying innocent people we are seeing many great content creators leave due to the drama and negativity that @mmmmkkkk311's downvote campaign brings to the blockchain. While he claims he is trying to defend his investment he is actually unwittingly destroying it.
SBI is an initiative that has done nothing but help promote onboarding and community building here on the Steem blockchain. Let us not turn our back on it out of fear for getting downvoted. Instead lets stand up for this great initiative that has helped so many people and helped the Steem community to grow and thrive!
Deferring it seems fine given lack of clear consensus, but I don't know that there would be clear consensus for the more complicated idea either (already in this thread there are some clear disagreements about how it might work and whether it is worth doing), so I would simply reduce this to "not going to implement right now" and leave the rest to further discussion.
This topic feels even more divided to me than the 50/50 debate. However, once we've got SMTs out of the way, I'm sure that we can get it done or rather Steemit Inc has capacities to truly implement a proposed solution.
steem will always be divided untill 1. steem prices go up 2. steemit inc steps in uses that steempower and throws some vote weight around, makes some dreams come true, changes some lives, has professional heart string pulling authors writing articles about steem everyday using this mascot
.png)
hey Im a rip off of Coindesk/Cointelegraph! Use me in your cartoony photoshop filter version of reality and paint a glossy image of steem everyday! Imagine the steem tribe we could create JUST for making news ABOUT crypto. Like Steemleo but no STEEM or LEO just CRYPTO. i bought the domain http://ChatCrypto.org and http://CryptoWars.org specifically for this purpose, to have some general overall crypto steem news sites.
Anyway what was the topic? steem power down? yeah man EOS is 3 days the whole thing feels much more like a bank like where people will put big money, steem needs some sort of SBD DEFI solution too .
We can get EOS SBDP on Newdex and Monaco card . I think SBDP on steem engine and newdex as a low supply EOS token would pump as, the SBD price on newdex couldnt drop too far as people could always generate new EOS SBDP from SBD, it will be fantastic. ive heard thats how steem pumped to $8 because SBD was such a low supply token lol i cant wait i need to buy so much steem to get ready i asked so many people to buy 100k STEEM at 10 cents, god, $10,000 got you 100,000 Stem, cant wait for $8 ATh even if BTC is even higher, steem will eventually be recognized when we just activate our army of incubating orcs , and unleash them onto the twitters. it has taken 3 years to grow the steem monster but its almost ready to become an akira like monster and absorb things, its already happening inside steem engine.
I am glad to see that The Steemit Team is not in favor of adding this to the SMT hard fork. Let the SMT hard fork stand alone. Your proposal would also allow time for people to think about what they want and what direction to take the shortened proposal. There is a lot for people to think about on this shortening of time than perhaps people realize.
Right now vested Steem (Steem Power) allows you to do everything, vote, curate, select witnesses. If a short power down cycle with all benefits is allowed there is nothing to prevent an agent of discord to come in with a lot of Steem, power it up, stack the witnesses for hard forks, or self vote, curate and run. So a lot of things need to be thought about in the sense of "how do we prevent???" scenario's.
Exactly what I’m thinking with the bad actors and not properly incentivizing long term behaviors, so I’d rather see all SP influence scale with lockup period rather than just earned interest. If theycallmedan chooses a year lockup and ranchorelaxo chooses 5 days... I do not want their votes having equal influence.
I just hope they, (steemit Dev team), are able to resist the tug-o-war of why wait do it now and try to add it into the SMT hard fork. SMT hard fork has been delayed enough, and with that the need/want/desire to change the withdrawal system may have other things to consider that have not been thought of yet.
THIS!
THIS!
!ENGAGE 23
@bashadow you have received
23 ENGAGEfrom @preparedwombat!View and trade the tokens on Steem Engine.
This is a terrible idea. Change for the sake of change is never good and it never works out well. This is the problem with all "republics" (we are a republic of money where dollars are votes).
Republics get so busy thinking about all the things they CAN change, that no one really stops to ask if you should change this. This is why new laws get passed every year as well and why year after year we are less free.
The steemit dao is just another republic and we need to be careful not to fall into the republic trap.
I admit, this idea is better than the previous 4 weeks proposal. But it still wants to change the drawdown period. There's not been a single person who could dent the price who has said to me. "Dale I'd hop in that steem pool and power up, if only it were a shorter period to draw down man!".
If you can bring some big time crypto investors onto a discussion panel who say the only reason they aren't invested in steem is the power down period but they would if it were only x weeks. Then you'll get my vote.
But the truth is no one is avoiding steem, not the people I know anyways. It's not avoidance, it's ignorance. Our job should be to educate them.
Anyone speculating on steem needs to buy steem. Anyone who's actually trying to build the community and the ecosystem, should be focused on powering up for as long as possible.
I implore you. Please stop looking to change fundamentals and focus more on dialing in what we've already got... Things like the API, need to really be expanded.
Out of your anecdotal experience, it is demonstrable that folks aware of Steem are indeed not piling on. Other than that, I pretty strongly agree with your comment.
Thanks!
Yes. Many people are avoiding Steem. You can see it in the statistics that the number of the daily active users on the Steem blockchain is constantly decreasing (dropping/falling) since months. Nowadays only about 31-32 000 accounts are active daily. And there are more than 1.3 million Steem accounts. The main reason is probably the low real human interactions. Nowadays people are posting around 29-39 000 posts per day, but the average number of comments is about 3. And most of these comments are bot and/or spam comments. The selfishness and the greed of the people is ruining the Steem blockchain.
It's not just selfishness and greed, it's also a poor UX and complicated sign-up process.
Cg
"... I am a new man, so to speak, like you, apparently free... But as you well know, appearances can be deceiving, which brings me back to the reason "why we are here"? We are not here, because we are free, we are here, because we are not free. There is no escaping reason, no denying purpose, because as we both know, without purpose, we would not exist." – Agent Smith, The Matrix Reloaded (2003).
Unless...
There is no purpose of living. ¡Living is the purpose!
I feel everything is being made more complicated, I would at least decrease it by two weeks to 10 just for easier math. Also compromise.
Interesting approach. I am for a instant power down for a 5-10% burn fee. (Agree with @Jrcornel response- with multi-factor identification and and white listed accounts etc... as protection against hacks) - is a instant power down even possible on Steem, or is 5 days the quickest?
I’ll think of this idea more and give a more detailed response on my thoughts.
Whatever the decision is I highly agree to postpone the change until after the SMT hardfork.
Instant power down is a security risk. If your account gets hacked the attacker can take 90-95% of your SP instantly and you lose everything.
The instant power down + burn fee could be optional. If you opt-in, you are sacrificing increased security for the ability to exit quickly.
Personally, if I had a second account that was whitelisted for me to withdraw to, an alt account (future could be a light account), for example, that would be fine for me. We can set it up so that anytime that whitelisted withdrawal address is changed, it takes a week before you can withdraw again. So even if my account was hacked, they could not instantly power down and send it to an exchange.
I'm not sure if we can have 2FA on withdrawals? If so, that would be another great feature to have, regardless of instant power down or not. Something like what ledger has, where you need to click ok on your physical device before the withdrawal goes through.
To be transparent, I feel these are changes I would like as an investor, and what other investors might like also. But, people do bring up good points to me how new people would want the instant power down, click on a scam link and get their account drained. And that would be terrible PR for Steem.
So I am not sold on the instant power down from an overall perspective. I do like to try and think of ways to get the cake and eat it too.
Instant powerdown could be an advanced setting for those who are aware of the associated risks.
What about @yabapmatt idea?
Could be this proposal an intermediate compromise between attract new investors and lesser down security risks?
Hm. Interesting idea. Could also work, but this would most likely require a bigger refactor than other options.
Yep! an interesting idea worth to throw a neuron or two on it right? :)
However, I can't see how this idea could likely require a bigger refactor than other options. I see it way more easy to implement than the many, multiple and diverse that have already been suggested throughout this post. Including those proposed by @steemitblog.
Do you care to elaborate where you see the 'bigger' difficulty?
It might not be that different actually. The logic around weekly powerdowns would have to be replaced with a lock-in for a certain period of time.
Well, those lock-ins for a certain period of time is precisely what I find most interesting and accurate on @yabapmatt optics about how address more directly the solution @steemitblog is posing. Well, at least while commitment never stops being present in the 'algorithmic' equation. Because otherwise, ¿Where's The Love? };)
I would still make it opt-in based or with another security layer.
What if an account is compromised right after the lock-in period expires? Wouldn't that allow the person with access to the account to withdraw all SP at once (assuming all SP is unlocked)?
5 day is to prevent someone from an instant power down -> power up new account and double-triple-etc vote on the same post with the same stake.
That could be sorted. For example nobody can start a powedown procedure unless their VP is sitting at 95%+...
Although now that I think about it someone could technically do this since posts pay out after 7 days, hmm. Don't remember what the exact thought process was behind making undelegations 5 days but it was something about preventing "double votes" AFAIK.
VP regenerates in 5 days, the post payout window doesn't matter.
If you move forward with a "longer pays better" system then there must be a penalty for those who "promise" longer power ups but power down early. those penalties should then be added to the reward pool or burnt or wtv
this system would introduce a whole new level of complexity to the system which might not be something the community can handle right now...
Maybe they should be grateful power downs are no longer 104 weeks and just focus on marketing and speculation. Pumping the price will bring goodness all around.
I don't mind if the power down is shortened.
I don't see any reason to add a more complicated internal process instead of focusing on market awareness and usability.
This is more making changes to feel like a you did something.
I don't care if you do it, but there are other things that could make a bigger difference
Agree with this in terms of priorities. Although with the community going ahead with two polls on the issue (ironically spending more time debating it than has ever been done marketing Steem or people's content), it more or less forces Steemit Inc to give a thoughtful reply. So not sure I would make it sound like they made this change to "feel like they did something".
But we certainly need to come around to more important topics.
Okay, good point... they are just responding.
I'm not going to make a big deal out of it, because it isn't a big deal.
Edited to ask how this supports your stated number 1 goal of onboarding?
Given people the right amount of incentives for locking up their stake is critical. Right now, 13 weeks is a random number the devs came up with when reducing it from 2 years powerdown. There is absolutely no reason why we should keep this legacy approach around, which isn't catering to different individuals, but rather is forcing everyone to have the same mindset (power it up for 3 months or you won't be able to participate)
I've never heard anyone say on Twitter, Steem or elsewhere. They were going to buy Steem but the power down period is too long. I lean slightly towards shortening it would be a good thing.
As I've said... I don't mind shortening it, making it complicated is just what many on Steem like to do in the name of "incentives".
I also find it interesting I haven't seen anyone look at the data we currently have to help make the decision. For instance, how many accounts impacting x amount of Steem are in full powerdown. One could assume that anyone who isn't in full power down, doesn't want or need a faster power down. (historically, would be even better, so see if there is a running average)
No one has done any market research such as an internal and external poll to determine how many people have avoided powering up due to the power down period. Clearly that was an issue if you remember when we had 104 week power downs... and it was clear it was an issue.
My opinion this is internal guessing on making more changes, without much thought to feel like we are making improvements.
Tell me Wolf, would you have a goal of what percentage of Steem you would like to see powered up?
Currently.. 127,853,120 Liquid STEEM (37.747% of supply) About 62 percent, is powered up (I'm rounding) The highest I've ever seen is 72%... What would you see as optimum?
If you don't have a goal and aren't sure of the results you are trying to achieve.. It is like throwing a dart at a dart board blindly and hoping it hits.
But this doesnt do anything though. Those that were powered up will remain so, those that arent wont be.
Giving a choice when powering up as to how long you will be powered up means nothing.
The point was to increase steem mobility, liquidity etc. Not adding a pointless complicated process.
I think we agree, see my next comment.
Sounds reasonable to me. The more choices for the user the better. Also, maybe power down should have its own key to prevent potential hacks.
I'm not sure the power down period is our biggest obstacle to building the userbase. Most will not have enough Steem in the short term to worry too much about it. I know we need people who will invest serious amounts and we want them to stick around rather than power down as soon as the price shifts. The original power down was 2 years, so there must have been a good case for making it long. If there is a quicker option then there should be penalties involved.