I think both ideas are great, please implement both of them. The loss of voting power for powering down is amazing, and the voting pool is needed very badly to increase interest from new users, and users who have a good reputation but no voting power.
Wait a minute... are more than 80% of big SP holders powering down?
Stop the madness... is this why the price is going down? Noooo, it couldn't be...
Wait.... could we make powering down at this stage less attractive and force those powering down to distribute significantly more to others?
No, no... it sounds too good to be true...
Wait that's exactly what this proposal will solve. Why should people powering down receive the same benefits as those not? If you power down you're out, why should you have any influence on Steemit?
Why would an investor get involved when the amount of liquid Steem released is being increased at a compounded rate per week? If you want out now, go for it, just know that you'll be penalised for it and SP holders will be rewarded.
Tragedy of the commons.
If you power down you are NOT OUT! Not by a 2 year long shot! That's the major and critical difference between steem and the rest of the crypto world! You cannot just pump and dump steem! If you buy it, you are invested in the future for steemit.
The whales are not selling out by powering down! They're getting paid for investing! Why would anybody invest in anything if not to get paid?!
I hope I never have enough money to invest in an initiative that helps people with less money than me because witnessing this entitlement and lack of gratitude is too disheartening. No wonder the wealthiest people in the world only look out for themselves.
Entitlement and lack of gratitude? I don't think so....
That wasn't my intention I was merely stating a few fundamentals given the context of a market and new investors wanting to get in. It's a very risky investment when you know that the amount of liquid stock is increasing at a compounded rate.
When we're looking at what was a 3-400 million dollar market cap the investors will need to have institutional size.
They'll look at the structure and immediately flag it in their heads as not having 'liquidity' and question why all the large holders are exiting. It's just common sense.
I may have been a bit theatrical to make a point. However the game theory of the proposals makes a lot of sense in the long run.
It's really shocking to me that nobody here seems to understand this or wants to actually acknowledge it. Nobody is going to invest if the initial investors are dumping Steem before the platform is even out of beta testing and is sustainable. Maybe it isn't common sense?
I apologise @wingz that comment wasn't really directed at you but at everybody on this thread arguing that whales should not be powering down.
If whales are to be "locked in" by any means more than the 2 years they already are, would discourage anybody else who might otherwise wish to participate.
Somebody else here said it already but if the system can't hold itself while whales power down then the system doesn't work.
If you find that you are in danger of having too much money send it to me.
Lol, no problem I'll send you $100 to write something for me and then you can act ungrateful and entitled by trying to lock me into a contract that forces me to pay you $100 every week to participate in a game of I give you money for content.
That makes having money a very attractive idea. I'm damned if I do and I'm damned if I don't.
Is your thinking that given the choice of powering down and voting, the whales would choose to power down instead of vote, and hence whale voting would be eliminated entirely from the eco-system?
Do whales actually make a lot of money from curation? If they don't (and I think the rewards have dropped from the early days), then they'll simply continue to power down, so the selling pressure on steem will remain.
Depends how they vote right. Smooth made 3000 sp last week, dantheman made 700 and donkeypong made 100 (all estimates). Just some random whales I chose but just check their curation rewards if you're curious.
If you are asking a whale to choose between powering down for $20,000 a week, and staying powered up to earn $3000 a week, they'll choose the former.
So there won't be a let up on the selling pressure on steem (and the whole idea behind the proposal was that it would stop them selling - but it won't).
Some are voting to make money while others are not. If you have a lot of SP, then you make money voting anyway. But much of my voting has been upclicking Project Curie's chosen posts and following AFTER whale votes to add a few more dollars for those deserving posters. One can use votes to make money or to help allocate it to others.
Damn man.... you hit it right on the head, @craig-grant I do agree with you fine sir! do it @ned before the weekend, you know its a solid move.
That is his flow..... :)
yes, this is my flow, honesty and transparency is true freedom