If I were @ned, this is how I would change the system. #1

The basic structure of Steemit, which is the developed version of the Steem Block Chain, is a service with no charge. My personal opinion is that social network services should not be charged.

This is why I underrate AKASHA which is being developed on the base of Ethereum.

In the long term, it won’t be easy for Steem to change the current non-charge system.

Steemit is like the Trojan horse for it has the idea of spreading Steem (a kind of crypto currency), all over the world. That’s why the Steem Block Chain creators want to increase the amount of Steemit users. But in reality, the increase of users is highly influenced by the market value of Steem. In other words, if the value of Steem increases, the number of Steemit users will go up too. The fastest way to increase Steem users would be progressive increase. Better if it’s faster.
A lot of people who invested in Steem are coming up with lots of ideas and they are trying to practice them, but the reality isn’t a pretty picture. The reason is simple. The high market value of Steem is possible when the systematic Steem Block Chain works great and when the users make an effort. But the current Steem has ‘Power down’, a tumor to the system.

The image above is a historical moment in Steem. In the past the market value of Steem was 15 million Satoshis, but in 40 days the value fell to three million Satoshis, increased to 76 in 13 days, and then fell to 15 million Satoshis.

I remember the situation at that time.

If I were @ned and I could change one system of the Steem Block Chain, the 1st would be reducing the power down period from 3 weeks to less than 3 days, or get rid of the power down period. When the value of Steem changed dynamically, the power down period was 103 days. That changed starting from the 16 Hard Fork in December.

The only positive side of the power down period at the moment is preventing the double voting.
Double voting is a serious problem for the Steem crypto currency, so you might think the power down period is necessary. But the problem could be solved if the order of the power down and up changes. In conclusion, the power down period isn’t needed.

If I were @ned, this is how I would change the system.
Steemit would take 7 days to power up, and 3 days to power down.
This way the problem of double voting could be solved perfectly and the disturbance of the market (power up according to the market situation after a power down) would be fixed.

Instant power down is also worth consideration, but since the power down period could prevent the property loss from leaked passwords, it is better to keep it in some way. As you can see from the price trend above, if the power down period exceeds three days, the investor would think that Steem is less worthwhile to invest.

For the rise of the Steem market value, the investor should be able to have free property rights.
If there are restrictions for the property rights of the investors, it would hardly be worth anything.

Think about it.

The current Steem market price is 100 million Satoshis. With the power down system, who could assure they could sell their Steem near 100 million Satoshis?

The best way to increase the Steem users is to get rid of the power down period or to reduce the period to 3 days. In this way, the author rewards would rise as well as the curation rewards, and the interests would rise too.

What do you think? If you have any negative scenarios of the system I came up with (7 days for power up, 3 or less for power down), let me know in the comments below )J

Thank you.
Written by @leesunmoo
Thank you, @leesol for drawing the banner.
Translated by @zoethehedgehog