RE: This Proposal Is An Attack On SBD... Sound The Alarm!
Voting up for bringing attention to an interesting discussion, but it's an early stage discussion on an early stage platform. The world domination strategy was certainly something I was most excited about, but until the platform grows and there's the potential to create a viable marketplace for SBD, it's just kind of a tease right now. I use it a bit to play the internal market, but that's basically it. I haven't powered down once in 6 months because I believe in the long term success of this platform. I like a liquid token, but with 7 day power down, it's not really that huge of a deal anymore. I want SBD and liquid STEEM, but I also don't think this would be the end of the world if they did want to explore it as an option. Again, it's early days here. I'd rather they tinker with stuff now before things get so big that consensus would be very difficult to obtain for any major changes (see Bitcoin).
Just to be clear... It seems like you aren't really coming down firmly on either side of this. You just want the team to be free to experiment with the platform? That's not unreasonable. But to the extent that I can influence the direction of the platform, I feel an obligation to speak out against developments that I consider harmful.
Ah, don't kid me. You live, breathe, and adore the drama. :)
This is a github ticket for discussion, not even a post by Dan or the Steemitblog for serious consideration. It's a discussion. "Sounding the alarm!" every time someone opens up a discussion stifles good discussion and exploration of new ideas.
I want them (and everyone else) to be absolutely free to discuss ideas. As to actual implemented code changes, if the witnesses agree, then yes. I'd much rather they experiment now and learn things early on then not experiment and be forced into a corner later when it's too hard to fix them (again, see Bitcoin).
I'm here for the long term. Short term adjustments while in beta don't concern me and I see them (and the willingness to try them) as good and healthy.
You feel obligated to sound alarms. Maybe try a more even, conversational tone and consider there may be new ideas you can learn from that you don't currently agree with. You've had to apologize in the past. Taking a more neutral tone and approach not only opens you to obtaining new information, but also to having fewer reasons to apologize.
Again, I voted this up because it's a good discussion to have. I don't think any alarm needs to be sounded though.
I don't think that is fair. There is ambivalence towards the very existence of SBD that extends to the highest levels of the dev team and steemit, inc. The tone of this post is entirely appropriate. Anyone in the community who cherishes SBD should be encouraged to make it known.
The problem with threatening SBD now is precisely that it may become too hard to fix that error later.
Replying to your earlier comment:
This is a classic chicken and egg problem. Such a marketplace will never be developed on the premise of serving a customer base that does not exist. Since paying SBD out to users even if they are just going to cash it in is basically harmless and nearly costless as described in the post (while developing a marketplace with no customers is neither), this is a case where the egg (paying out SBD to users) must come before the chicken (marketplace and other commerce involving users)
I agree, and it's why I'm a fan of the SBD (though a little selfishly sad the interest rate has gone down, though I do get the reasoning behind it).
As to it being too hard to fix, I don't know about that. If a marketplace with STEEM (as an example) didn't work out, I'm not sure why they wouldn't be able to re-introduce SBD? I'm talking about something I have very little experience on here, and I know you have been very active in supporting the peg. If you feel even discussing this is reason to raise an "alarm" then I'm misunderstanding something.
Debt always creates some risk. Not too long ago @bacchist was freaking out (from perspective) on the amount of debt being too high and encouraging people to burn their SBD and/or go full SP on payouts.
At some point it seems to me like every change (even a discussion of a change) creates dramatic alarms. That's too emotionally charged for my tastes. Discussing ideas is a good thing, and we should encourage ideas and changes while the platform is small, and mistakes are easily fixable. If we get things wrong, it won't matter anyway because the platform won't grow to the point where enough people really care.
Either way, thanks for chiming in, @smooth. As I've said before, I greatly appreciate the work you've done to make the SBD peg work.
Because it would be much farther along with more competing interests and justifiable reasons to not want to make major changes. That is the nature of these systems as they mature, as you pointed out in your comment above. Keeping an undefined "beta" label on it indefinitely does not resolve that issue.
Take that in context along with "sound the alarm!"
That said, what was the debt ratio when that was happening? I suspect a lot higher, in which case freaking out may have been somewhat reasonable. We've learned a lot about how to manage the risks, including taking action well before the debt level reaches the previous high levels (as was not done previously), and I'm convinced now that it is quite manageable. Yes not zero cost or risk as you correctly pointed out, but quite low.
I am missing something? Isn't the powerdown period 13 weeks not seven days?
You can get a portion of your SP holdings as a liquid token (1, 13th to be exact) in 7 days.
I understand that. Before you could get 104 weekly "payments". and now it's 13. On your comment it sounds like you can power down in seven days.
This proposal will motivate users to be in permanent powerdown mode in case anyone needs to access their funds for an emergency.
I am guessing it will have the opposite effect of it's intention.