I have to admit that I have conflicting thoughts with this proposal, on the one hand I agree that the power down time could decrease as it did once in a previous HF, that could be good for people who need (for whatever reason) a quick withdrawal and the liquidity of your investment. In my personal case, I am in a situation where I might need to quickly convert what I have invested to cover some contingency, so the proposal could be good, but ...

There is also the problem of speculative investments, of pumping prices and then withdrawing quickly before these actions (conscious and intentional) cause a fall in prices. That is dangerous for the project and for the blockchain participants who are committed in the long term to the success of Steem.

So I still have the head in an internal discussion, on the one hand it could serve to attract investors who could delegate their SP, see it grow by curatorship, return on investment or organic growth in cases where they are also content generators. But, it can attract "Swallows" that could have enough capital to handle large purchases to raise the value and then collapse it, leaving us well beaten while they withdraw with the profits ...

The power down in several months, may be somewhat strange when compared to the liquidity of other blockchain currencies, but it is important to remember that this project seeks to create an ecosystem of social applications and focused from the beginning (as far as I understand) to participants in the long term that they maintained a part of what they generated for their contents in the same blockchain.

In the end, due to my personal circumstances and the high levels of uncertainty in which I have to live lately, I believe that I will end up supporting the initiative, but still worrying if we are opening a field to attract investors, new curators and new creators of contents or we are opening a Pandora's Box.