Question for the top 20 Witnesses about HF21
I have been a little bit distracted today regarding STEEM… fortunately I have read the last post of @mindtrap regarding what it seems to be an irremediable implementation of the famous Hardfork 21, which seems that is going to be deployed in very short time...
After reading the short informative post of @steemitblog (Steemit Update: HF21 Testnet, SPS, EIP, Rewards API, SMTs!) and all the consequent comments I personally don't support any of the proposed changes, mainly because I think it is going to penalize thousands of content creators in favor of big whales IMO...
This time @Steemit has informed us that by Thursday 1 PM EDT a Tesnet with the HF21 will be available for anyone to test the new code... That is great because Witnesses and developers will test how stable the code will be...
But, of course, we are unable to anticipate what would be the impact that those drastic changes, IMO, will bring for the steemians.
Honestly, what I have read till now is more negative than positive...a few witnesses have defended the new proposal, some clearly not... also I have read very contrarial opinions coming not only from Minnows and Dolphins but also from Orcas and big stakers...
However, in this blockchain we have a consensus protocol on which mainly the 20 top witnesses can vote in favor or against the proposed Hardfork before its deployment.
We, the non-witness steemians have our opinion and a point of view but we can do very little if the witnesses have decided already to go all-IN for the Hardfork implementation...but, it seems to me that those witnesses can have a biased opinion since they are in the top 20, sometimes, because the big whales in favor of the HF21 have put them there...sorry if I am wrong...
Before trying the new code at the TESNET, I would like to ask a question to the top 20...hopefully I reach them from here...
who of the TOP 20 witnesses is in favor and who is against?
@yabapmatt
@curie
@blocktrades
@gtg
@roelandp
@someguy123
@good-karma
@themarkymark
@therealwolf
@aggroed
@cervantes
@thecryptodrive
@ocd-witness
@timcliff
@anyx
@ausbitbank
@smooth.witness
@followbtcnews
@lukestokes.mhth
@clayop
Just I would like an answer from each of you, IN FAVOR or AGAINST... no justification, no more comments, that's all...
I hope they read this post.
Cheers.
Posted from my blog with SteemPress : https://scrips.io/blog/toofasteddie/question-for-the-top-20-witnesses-about-hf21/
I read some interesting analysis from @trafalgar and @kevinwong that discussed the intent behind the changes in the "EIP" portion (50/50 author/curator split, and the convergent linear rewards curve), as I was initially under that impression that it seemed to be unfairly targetted at smaller SP accounts (and content creators in general).
If I understand what they said correctly (and I hope someone corrects me if I misinterpret) -- under the current system it is approximately 4x more profitable to self-vote & delegate passively to bidbots as opposed to curating and voting on content. The effect this has is, obviously, encouraging people to self-vote and delegate to bidbot services.
The changes in the EIP, apparently, should make it "approximately equally profitable" to use ones SP for curation, or to continue self-voting / delegating to bidbot services.
Are the changes in the EIP a silver bullet and a perfect solution? I don't think so.
But it seems like it should have the effect of "encouraging" large SP holders to spread their voting power around via curating, rather than just voting for themselves to increase their stake. Currently, large SP holders have to be altruistic (or dumb) to vote for others (losing out on the potential gains that can be had from self-voting).
I think what's missing from a lot of the analysis / criticisms that we've seen so far is that, apparently, larger SP holders should (in theory) start spreading their votes around -- or at least they'll stop actively realizing losses if they choose to do so.
I assume the most will be in favor
Posted using Partiko Android
The situation with STEEM will continue to get worse with these changes. The Witnesseses and a few other people will be able to drain this place even more and the few content creators that will be rewarded will just be more of the cookie cutter content mill. Same stuff puked out everyday.
I'm seriously thinking about powering down the rest of my stake. I was going to retain 2000 SP just encase but things keep getting worse and STEEM just continues to slide.
Posted using Partiko Android
For me the drainer is really @steemit
Yeah they are a big part of the problem for sure.
Posted using Partiko Android
The freedom steem represents unfortunately makes it vulnerable to exploitation and selfish incentives. I think this proposal is a necessary evil, however I think they should include a 'tax return' clause so, in the event of a bloated treasury we can distribute a % of funds back to authors who were taxed.
I read that they were planning on burning excess treasury tokens, but I think that's a horrible idea. Who would want tax dollars to be destroyed?
No, they need a tax refund option. Everyone likes a check in the mail, and if you produced more content that brought more steem into the treasury, then you should get a proportional return at the end of the quarter or month.
Posted using Partiko Android
Refunding that many users would be a huge cost to the chain. It's better off just being left in the pool of sps. This still keeps it locked up and stops it from flooding the market as we see happen now with sp power-downs and people earnings from posts. Anytime we saw it refund users we would see a significant sell-off, which would make the market cap take a hit.
If anything like that was made it should pay user back in sp so it has a 13 week power-down time so we don't see any issues with the market collapsing if say a million steem is dropped on the market
If it can't be refunded then it needs a hard cap to prevent it growing indefinitely.
My concern is that we might not be able to agree on what projects get funded or that we end up with a development drought, and the pool just grows, effectively being inflation for the sake of inflation. I wouldn't mind it being paid in sp tbh
Perhaps a refund could be rolled out in stages, but I honestly prefer a cap.
I believe the SPS can help the ecosystem and we need to tweak a little the EIP!
Posted using Partiko Android
So, did you vote those witnesses that are in favor of the HF21?... We should know it so we can also influence the consensus according to our preferences
I have not the time at the moment to investigate every witnesses out there.