HF Proposal: Vote to Reduce Power Down Period to 4 Weeks

in #steemdao3 years ago (edited)


pixabay.com image

Please note there are now two proposals issued to enable the community to either vote IN FAVOUR or AGAINST the idea of a 4 week Power Down period reduction.

Vote this proposal if you are "IN FAVOUR" of reducing the Power Down period to 4 weeks.

Voting platforms:


If you are "AGAINST" the 4 week Power Down change then visit the COUNTER PROPOSAL

Be sure to read discussions on both proposal posts in order to make an informed decision and feel free to contribute towards the discussion.

Check the latest Steemitblog post for additional discussion.

Excerpt from Original proposal

This is a consensus proposal to allow witnesses and stakeholders to vote on this change being implemented in the next HF, thereby recording their approval on-chain.

The proposed change is to reduce the current 13-week power down schedule to 4 weeks. The reason for selecting 4 weeks was to still provide some lockup protection within the 30-day account recovery period.

There was talk about having different power down schedules for earned vs invested SP but that would be a much more complex code change and additional cognitive load for the user, therefore this proposal is simply for a reduction to 4 weeks and nothing else.

The changes will likely involve code to first halt all current power downs in progress and change the parameter from 13 to 4 weeks.

The premise behind this change is to reduce the barrier to entry for investment into Steem and PoB SMT's, currently it is daunting for investors to lock-up their capital for 13 weeks. While 4 weeks is still high compared to other chains like EOS, it is a positive incremental iteration in the right direction, with low risk of market sell-off. It can be further reduced in a future hardfork if proven to not have adverse market effects.

Implementation: This is likely a small code change that can be done by Steemit Inc., community developers are of course entitled to submit PR's to the public repo for these changes or submit a proposal to be remunerated for the same.

There was also a discussion about adding an instant power down by burning 5-10% of the stake, that may be more expensive to code and perhaps should not be considered for this HF, but if still desired should be voted on via a separate proposal. (EDIT: This has been found to be very dangerous, a hacked account could be instantly drained via this burn mechanism and therefor circumvents any lockup period safety benefits.)

Please can all top 20 witnesses who support this change kindly vote FOR or AGAINST. Backup witnesses, active stakeholders and community members are invited to vote as well.

Proposal Recipient Disclaimer: The proposal recipient will be @steem.dao, funds will be returned to the SPS pool, the purpose of the proposal is to achieve voting consensus either IN FAVOUR or AGAINST the 4 week powerdown change.

Beneficiary Disclaimer: This is a 100% 🔥Burnpost🔥!


I'm all for four weeks or even one week. I don't think it is demonstrated that these long lockups provide clear benefit at the system level. Yes there are benefits to an individual whose account gets hacked, but these come at a cost of adding dead weight (which then contributes to everyone losing 99%+ of value) to the system as a while. I'm not sure that is a good trade-off.

If people want a longer lock-up for security purposes then perhaps the savings account feature which has never been used much can be repurposed to a voluntary longer safety-focused lock up.

There are also other approaches to reducing hacks such as building in 2FA with a mobile app. Lock-up is not the way to do this.

I'm sure there are people who will deny that Steem's misfeatures such as long lockups and high inflation are responsible for its price decline but frankly speaking I think that is 99% bullshit. Yes it is a bear market and yes crypto coin prices can have a mind of their own, but most of the reasons Steem has declined from a top 10 or maybe top 20 coin to barely hanging on in the top 100 are bad design and execution decision of our own making.

I am for less than 4 weeks, like just one week. Long powerdown was coupled with high inflation rate for SP in order to disincentivize liquidating STEEM. For the current economic design, I think one week is a better choice.

Thanks @clayop, please cast your vote on the proposal if you haven't already.

@proxy.token supports your opinion, and thank you for your voice as many Korean users think, Mr.@clayop!

Funny, I don't see anyone clamouring for lock-in periods with bitcoin. Or, really, any asset in the world. This stuff has been solved a long time ago with various methods of cold storage. I'd imagine hardware wallet support will be enough for most regular people. Not to mention, there's the account recovery solution and savings account. Even beyond those, there are better solutions. What more does one need, at the cost of negating all investor appeal?

Many of these "unique features" of Steem have failed. It would be prudent to adopt what has proven to work in the crypto market. There's a $240 billion market of tokens with no lockup, how much for those with 13 week walls, again?

Glad you are of the same mindset, please will you cast your vote on the proposal @

My vote is negligible, but I've voted anyway. To be clear, I would prefer to have a 3 days power down period, and have the payout period reduced to 24 or 48 hours. But 4 weeks is a step in the right direction.

Why would you want payout reduced? Then you'd only have 24 or 48 hours to earn rewards. Way too short. People don't log on every day to upvote things. If anything it should be longer for payout periods. The fact that you can only earn rewards for the 1st week is kind of shitty. It should be forever with payouts being made every X amount of days or X amount of earned Steem.

Steem isn't locked up, it's liquid, just like Bitcoin.

It's only Steem Power that's locked and I think it makes sense to keep Steem and Steem Power separate and distinct.

or even one week

So, you don't mind Bittrex staking its customers funds and using it to vote for witnesses, SPS and posts ?

Thanks @smooth, please cast your vote on the proposal if you haven't already.

Why I was proposing the two staking pools is to cater to both short term and longer term investors.
Shorter term investors have more liquidity while still can participate in PoB and longer term investors who are willing to give up liquidity to show commitment by locking up have more power in governance.
The silly thing about the current system imo is that 13 weeks is such a tall commitment especially on crypto space to participate in PoB, one of our "unique feature". On the other hand, people with minimal commitment voting on the future of the chain looks like recipe for disaster.
If it's deemed to be too complicated to implement I suppose it's not worth it after all.

Custom duration lockup period that works with SP would be cool but It will never be implemented because it will never be on top priority lol.

If this proposal passes as is I am actually more in favor for 1 week instead chickening on 4 weeks, maybe I am too paranoid about exchanges voting. As for security... I guess we need to be more careful with our keys.

I think staking multiple pools, variable locking periods for security, etc. might be okay but I don't think they should be at the base layer. If we had even simple smart contracts like Bitcoin or perhaps even a tiny bit more powerful, then these sorts of features could be added as applications (and this is necessary for things like cross chain swaps, payment channels, etc.). That's obviously not going to happen in the next version but once we are done playing with SMTs, maybe we will start to realize that trying to satisfy every need at the base layer with hard forks needed for each and every change is impractical and foolish.

Ideal solution to me is where staking long period is not only a security feature but also grants more power for witness voting and SPS by giving up liquidity. Ideally will be like 1 week stake have x1 vote multiplier, 2 week stake have x2 vote multiplier, and so on. If staking for a long period have no incentive whatsoever might as well have minimum stake period.

I agree that reducing the lock up period to 4 weeks is going to be a positive change. 13 weeks seems to be a huge amount of time. If an uptrend starts and you want to unstake then at the current situation would be a waste of effort but while 4 weeks might be just right.

Posted using Partiko Android

Agree with you @smooth

One week power down should be enough to still feel safe and secured (as a user). However somehow I like idea of 4 weeks power down much more than 1 or 13.


This isn't a frontend vs chain development problem. It's something that needs a blended approach.

I'm for the change if:

  1. Accounts must opt-in to the 4 week divestment rather than opt-out of it. The 13 week divestment is a security feature that prevents accounts from being instantly cleared out if compromised.
  2. It is treated like an advanced feature and not like a simple click of a button. Frontends should commit ahead of time to provide sufficient information to users who are selecting it.

We have to recognize that while we're aiming to improve our attractiveness to investors we're also reciting "mainstreaming" like a broken record. There's no way to mix advanced and basic. If we try we'll end up with something that doesn't work for anyone.

There are rolling waves of phishing and hacking on Steem. We recently suppressed one such wave. Accounts that are compromised may not know they are compromised as they rely on posting authority through myriad dapps, which does not inform them something is wrong when the hacker changes their keys. It usually takes up to a week for an account to notice they are hacked and their funds are being moved. If they lose a quarter of their powered up STEEM the results to those investors and to the retention of same would be devastating. There's this perception that most phishing victims are new users with no investment. That's false. Most of the victims were active for months if not years and either accumulated or invested their stake. The largest hack (irrecoverable) was about 36k STEEM and the next one down, from an account that then invested and became a whale, was 10k. The opt-in should have a timer of at least 7 days but preferably 30 days, same as other key functions, before the opt-in takes effect. That would add another layer of protection.

Other forms of exploitation that we like to call "abuse" are highly likely to occur but shouldn't preclude implementation. Removal of a capability to halt a potential minor risk isn't the correct response in my opinion. I treat phishing/hacking as a major risk, for the record. Those who haven't been victims yet may disagree but anyone can be next.

At the same time the 4 week schedule holds merit for advanced users who know how to safeguard and monitor their wallets and are active traders. Tying up capital that can be used for trading is pretty stupid. Tying up capital is however necessary to outfit projects and to obviously perform basic functions like curation with any level of enjoyment. Those same advanced users should arguably have the capability to swap their trustee account and recover themselves if compromised.

Whether a divestment schedule change can attract investors is another matter. We're assuming that it will. It's going to take developer hours and a hardfork, both of which are expensive for everyone already invested and involved. Granted it can be bundled with the next planned fork, which would make it more acceptable to the ventures. It's still going to take time from the development team no matter how the code will be approached.

We need to answer the following before we start to the best of our ability:

  1. What quantifiable estimate of value is it projected to add?
  2. How will this change be communicated to new investors?
  3. Will it cause rapid divestment by the current investors?

I don't think we need to baby customers too much, there is inherent hack risk in crypto, bitcoin is way more popular than Steem and has no such safeguards. My ideal implementation would be 4 weeks defacto but have advanced features to increase number of weeks per individual choice, however this will make the code for this HF more complex and we want to keep it light because of SMT complexity already, big risk adding complicated changes to this HF.

I would agree except we are onboarding mainstream users.

Why should it take developers time to change a number in the code "13" to the number 4, instead. I'm sorry it might be slightly more difficult than that, but not by much. Seems like it could be done in a few days, at most.

Posted using Partiko Android

There are things that can conflict as a result. Although it seems simple its not.

In my opinion it's a horrible idea.

When an account is compromised with 4 week powerdown worst case scenario if it's recovered on day 28+ all its stake whether it's powered up or not are stolen (Is it even worth recovering anymore?). Even if its recovered day 7+ after it's stolen it loses at least 25% of its powered up stake while with our current powerdown period at worst case when it's recovered on day 28+ it only loses 4/13 of its powered up stake, a little more than 30%. After 30 days of course you lose the account to the hacker on both cases.
Shortening powerdown is also bad because how our hardfork works. 4 weeks is not too bad (still worse than 13 weeks), but 1 week is plain horrible. If it's only 1 week exchanges will undoubtedly start voting for witnesses. You say our powerdown period is too long compared to EOS but they are having a huge governance problem. Even Dan Larimer is proposing staking pools with up to 10 years(!) lockup period and the 3 day lockup EOS tokens have 0 vote for BPs, the minimum lockup to have any vote for BPs is 3 month, pretty close with Steem right now and it seems like it won't have gradual weekly powerdown like Steem has. If an "investor" can't even commit to their "investment" for 13 weeks do they even can be counted as "invested" in the chain? If they just want to speculate on STEEM price that's what liquid STEEM is for, hold those instead.
The instant powerdown with burn fee is even more horrible idea. Now instead of losing 25% of your powered up stake each week when your account is compromised you lose 100% right away, GG!
However, I agree that in order to participate in PoB someone shouldn't be forced to lock up their capital for 13 weeks.

Here are my proposed changes instead:

  • 2 separate staking pools
  • The first pool has 1 week powerdown (even better than 1 month) and the second pool has 13 weeks powerdown
  • Entitlements of the first pool: VP and RC
  • Entitlements of the second pool: VP, RC, Witness vote, SPS vote, etc. (The benefits of SP right now).
  • Delegations works as if the pools are mixed. (You can delegate 210 STEEM away if you have 100 STEEM staked on the first pool and 110 STEEM staked on the second pool). Delegations delegate VP and RC like how it works right now and will interact with the RC delegation pool however it works in the next hardfork.
  • SP reward on posts can go to first pool or the second according to witness consensus. The name of each pool should be discussed with the community (only one of them keeps the name SP).
  • Stake on first pool can be converted to the second pool instantly but not the other way around (similar to Dan Larimer's proposal).
  • Current SP can be converted to first pool or the second pool on hardfork according to witness consensus. Each has their benefits and drawbacks. If it's converted to the first pool non-committed people gets weeded out really fast as they won't be converting their stake into the second pool but witness votes basically reset to zero and may cause instability in governance and block production for a short term. Converting to second pool is safer but will take 13 week correction time until it shows the results of the previous way. Of course we can assign a ratio too (like 90% goes to the first pool and 10% goes to the second pool) and have the benefits of both but needs a little longer implementation time.
  • When these separate pools is implemented I think making the second pool powerdown period even longer than 13 week can be considered if we want to see more committed witness voters and more protection when an account is compromised.

Yes, these changes will be complicated to code but I think this is the way to go instead of simply reducing the powerdown period to please the so-called "investors" which in my opinion is very shortsighted .

That's my thoughts on this.

Way too complicated IMO. Just not worth even close to that level of mechanism for something (lock up) that is very minor to the platform overall.

If someone were building a system like Steem today it would not have 13 week lockup and certainly would not have the 2 year lockup that was originally there (and for which reducing to 13 weeks was proposed as a compromise). It would probably have a few days to possibly a few weeks of lockup, or maybe none.

These were experimental ideas, worth a try, but really did not demonstrate any clear benefits, did not catch on more broadly, and should be left behind.

The reasoning behind your comment is plain stupid. Sry. 99% of cryptos don't have a 13 week powerdown and they function perfectly well. Security? You offered such a fringe example that happens in 0.1% of cases here.

The 13 week powerdown is extremely detrimental to the price of steem and offers basically nothing.
Adjustment could be made for the person staking to stake for however long he wants or 2f authorization added.

All those things can be added as long as the 13 week powerdown is eliminated.

That's the single biggest culprit in steem being at 80th in mc

Do you not even notice that I propose 1 week powerdown alongside 13 weeks powerdown? I just want the 1 week lockup to not have any voting power for witnesses and proposals. if it's possible to keep PoB from being gamed without lockup at all then the 1 week powerdown can be eliminated.

In Steem we use our keys an awful lot compared to other cryptos. When this chain become more popular, if that ever happens, incentives to steal accounts will be way bigger than now, Compromised accounts will still be fringe cases but will happen a lot more often. 2F auth doesn't protect anyone that got their key(s) compromised unless it's implemented on blockchain level.

If custom stake period is implemented I want staked STEEM have vote weights for witnesses and proposals proportional to the stake period.

If someone doesn't want to stake their Steem for 13 weeks, can't they just buy liquid Steem?

I think you forgot to mention that Steem CAN be bought, just like any other liquid crypto like Bitcoin.

  • That is what liquid Steem is for and IMO there should be a clear distinction between liquid Steem and Steem Power.

Steem needs to be simple for users, we cater for more normies than EOS does so we shouldn’t get too complicated, Dan tends to make things too convoluted and technical for the average user. We already have 3 currencies on Steem, adding an extra pool is akin to having 4. I don’t think a 4 week pd schedule will create a governance issue, take for example a major shareholder in a real world company stock, there is no lockup period traditionally unless that was the terms given in a buyout or something but that won’t be common, investors in such stocks still exercise their voting rights for the good of their investment same as if you own a property in s body corporate, you can sell it anytime but doesn’t mean while you hold the property you will make malicious voting decisions at meetings.

The issue with EOS and alot of crypto is the quality of investors, no matter if the lockup is short or long, a bad acting large stakeholder can still help mess up the project.

For myself a short or long time period won’t change my decision making process, my investment in Steem is my time over the years that makes me invested.

I do like your point about the burn being a huge security risk and defeats the object of the security feature of the 30 day recovery period.

I also urge users to split their stake across multiple accounts and for ease of use can delegate to the main account. Having as shorter pd period can help users decentralise their holdings in this manner for increased security.

Steem needs to be simple for users, I agree. That's why I concede at two pools instead of Dan's wacky amount of pools. Normie users actually doesn't need to learn about the extra pool at all. If SP rewards for posts and curation goes to the first pool then they don't need to learn about the second pool unless they are interested in voting for witnesses and proposals. If it goes to the second pool users don't need to learn about the first pool unless they actively don't want witness and proposal voting power and prefer faster power down and don't mind the lower security. The choice depends whether you (witnesses) consider witness and proposal voting a "normie feature" or not. Users only forced to learn about both pools if post and curation rewards goes to both pools which I'm strongly against. While we are at it, I'm also proposing disabling SBD rewards entirely on posts next hardfork as the DAO already provides constant downward pressure to SBD price regardless of the debt ratio, this way normie users don't need to know about SBD unless they are interested about holding this particular stablecoin.

This is a tangent but no lockup in most real life companies is the very reason company's shareholders prioritize short term profits over sustainability and treats their workers pretty badly knowing when in near inevitable crash they can bail right away, even worse after crashing they cry to government to get bailed out to "protect their worker's job" while they have already bailed themselves and became shareholders on other companies (or simply keep their wealth from selling the stocks). Taxpayers get screwed too even though they have nothing to do with the company.
Yes, most stocks in real life companies don't have lockup period but having lockup period for governance voting forces the stakeholder looking at the best interest of the token value at least for the duration of the lockup. We are a blockchain community not companies. We have no workers to exploit as they can simply leave and we have no government to bail us out when we make a lot of bad short term decisions. One of the main reasons we have lockup period at all is so exchanges can't vote, the lower the duration the more vulnerable we are to that and this complements with the security issues I mentioned on the previous post too. Exchanges are not in for long haul, STEEM is just one asset they hold and it's not even theirs.

You agree that quality of investors of crypto is bad but you advocate for shorter lockup? If it's implemented like I proposed we can still market the lowered (1 week) staking period to new investors and if they want to get involved in governance they only allowed to play a long game. Where's the drawback? Most of our bad stakeholders now are due to ninjamine and/or only invested because of bad economics pre-HF21 anyway.

Sure, I believe you are a good actor but you can't just project your behavior to other actors. If a system rely on all its participant to act good it's garbage. Why are you even advocating shorter powerdown period if it doesn't affect your behavior whatsoever?

Yeah, keeping multiple private keys for multiple accounts where an account already have multiple private keys is totally user friendly. How about having a single account with higher security where 100% (or at least significant portion) of your stake doesn't get stolen within the account recovery window?

Steemit just needs to stay decentralised and thats pretty much it, oh and keep going. As for the power down i say keep it at 13 weeks. No reason other than in the real world 13 weeks lock up of your investment is nothing and second why encourage volatility in the Steem price.

I'm supporting this and also think the proposal that @theycallmedan has made repeatedly of allowing a penalised quick power down is well worth implementing if the security implications can be thought through properly.

The quick powerdown based on burn was at first glance a cool idea but after more thought it totally circumvents any lockup period security, you might as well not have a lockup period for safety then if a hacker can get into your account and initiate a burn to get all your funds out.

Surely there could be a simple opt in and people who feel confident in their own ability to secure their accounts can sign up for high speed power down. Obviously after a 13 week wait that would kick and and the account would be marked as available for quicker power downs.

Sure anything is possible but adds to complexity of the chain because now you have to store the opt-in state of each account.

What if you would have to use the Owner Key instead of Active in order to make an instant power down with a burn? This way you wouldn't have to be worried of losing all your funds in case of some getting their hands on your Active Key.

We @proxy.token and KR community actively support your proposal ! Actually we want shorter powerdown period, but the four weeks you suggest could be the first step of that.

Thank you so much for your proposal, @thecrytodrive !!

An absolute pleasure, I think 4 weeks is a number most people can get behind and later we can reduce if this proves to be successful. Appreciate your support.

You did good job, @thecryptodrive. I'm happy I could support you with that proposal.

.... from Mr.Salmon.

Thanks so much for your support!

Your proposal must be passed at last! You did it! Congratuations!
We @proxy.token and KR community are all happy with it.
Thank u, @thecryptodrive.

Yes it has passed with your help, much appreciated. It would be good if a majority of top20 witnesses had also voted it, so far only 8/20 have voted for the change, ultimately witnesses govern the outcome, the purpose of this post was to create a central point to collect votes from both witnesses and the community. The fact that it is at the top of the list shows witnesses that haven't voted that the community is seriously behind such a change. I saw there was a user threatening to unvote witnesses who support the change, perhaps your community could support and vote for witnesses that do vote for the change.

Hi @proxy.token I saw you voted some new witnesses which moved my rank out of the top20. I was surprised I didn’t get your vote since we are aligned in improving Steem with the shorter powerdown period and my recent efforts with the @sbdpotato project to try fix the SBD peg. I can’t influence changes if I am not in the top20 so I ask that you consider voting me as well.

I am on board. Bottom line is this issue needs to be addressed because all new SMTs created will have the same power down time. If we already know we are going to reduce it from 13 weeks, we need to do it now as opposed to having a SMT Nightmare involving recreating SMTs and trying to airdrop new tokens, etc when we finally shorten the power down period.

Yes agreed we need to make the change on the SMT HF.

4 weeks is a good idea in my opinion 😀

Posted using Partiko iOS

What is the need of decreasing the Power Down period when investors can always invest in liquid Steem at any time if they don't want it locked for 13 weeks?

This would certainly alleviate some fears for potential investors!

Great to have you here building, promoting and guiding Steem @thecryptodrive!

glad to see u back bro here is 1 peosp @peos privacy on eos token

Good stuff!

Can't investors buy liquid Steem at any time without ever having their Steem "locked up for long periods of time"?

I wouldn’t mind if it was reduced to 2 weeks tbh. Or even a week only

We can’t go less than one week otherwise can powerdown transfer to another account and vote twice. Some stakeholders don’t feel 2 weeks is enough for funds protection incase of a hack. Personally i would like to see a min period like one week with user defined longer lengths for those who want to lockup funds longer. For simplicity we won’t put that on the table for this HF.

I feel we could reduce the voting time. Given all of the experiments we've done (12 hours, 24 hours, 30 days, 7 days), the one that seems to have worked the best is 24 hours.

7 days isn't nearly long enough for people who want evergreen rewards, so they need to come up with another solution anyway, and after the first day or two of 7 days, diminishing returns kicks in and the amount of voting goes way down. Later votes are probably disproportionately used by scammers too.

i think 3 days is good enough to cover all timezones and people being offline on weekends.

Sure we can go to one week. Or even less. All it would take is the implementation of a rule that wouldn’t allow anyone to delegate nor to start a power down procedure unless they have been sitting on 100% VP. Sounds crazy?

100% VP is not easy to get to, especially if you delegate regularly, each time i delegate on dlease my VP reduces. But in any event we are wanting to keep the code overhead low for the upcoming HF, it is already very complicated with SMTs being added.

The savings on the wallet can be acting like the current powerdown system I think they should just switch it. Once one save fund come in 13 weeks while power down should be 3days

Posted using Partiko Android

You never addressed the issue of exchanges using some of their deposits to vote on witnesses if the Power Down length is to short.

You also failed to state that investors can invest in liquid Steem, just like any other cryptocurrency like Bitcoin without having to even stake 1 Steem.

The best proposal outhere. It can attract many new people that just don't like having their money frozen for so long.

Nice, glad u like it!

Can't people buy liquid Steem without ever having it locked in Steem Power?

I just launched the Infowars Token tribe and enabled scot and staking and i chose 3 days, 1 period, just like eos, because if i have to rely on some staking period of a month of more then it cant stand on its own too legs :) bitcoin has no staking so 3 days will be fine even , for tribe tokens

steem may need at least 7 days to avoid some sort of gaming i think but yeah well see :) Im hoping for Freemium tribe creation and or ENg proposals on @eosdac dac factory for ENG on EOS soon so we can propose good tribe sand get funding foir it

I think the ultimate goal would be 7 days but for now I think 4 weeks is a prudent iteration. I woukd also like to see voluntary longer lockups oncase one were to go on holiday and want the security, also not bad to have longer lockups in the face of quantum threat.

I think it would be better to introduce dynamic staking and schedule it for the next hardfork, the one after this next one.

If the ultimate goal is 7 days, what would then be the clear difference between Steem and Steem Power? @thecryptodrive

I agree that a shorter staking period would likely make STEEM somewhat more attractive to investors. On the other hand, the security of having a long staking period should not be discounted, especially given that a) active keys are handled frequently, b) there is currently no hardware wallet support, and c) I'm not aware of good options for notification services to help warn users of an unexpected powerdown. Also, taking the experience of EOS into account, we should be concerned about the possibility of exchanges voting with user stake.

With these things in mind, currently I would caution against entertaining anything less than a 4-week powerdown. Even then, I would personally want to see a) some good notification services, and b) a powerdown schedule that is back-end heavy...e.g. 4 increasing weekly powerdowns of 10%, 20%, 30%, and 40%. That way users still get 100% in 4 weeks instead of the current 13 weeks, but the new risks are mitigated fairly substantially, and without adding much complexity, compared to 4 equal weekly powerdowns of 25%.

Lastly, I see the benefits of having some kind of dynamic staking scheme with variable APR, which could enable staking options both shorter and longer than 4 weeks (where longer staking periods would come with more voting power). But obviously this is more complicated and would take more time to come up with the most sensible (and simplest) possible scheme, and to code/test it. Not to mention, I would not favor enabling any staking periods shorter than 4 weeks without first having hardware support in place.

P.S. I get that items such as notifications and hardware support are not core level changes.

@smooth @therealwolf

@tombstone thanks for your feedback.

I have just added PD notifs to the Ginabot notification service roadmap for you.

I think 4 weeks is perfectly balanced and no need to go lower, if we are worried about exchanges voting we can add an exchange blacklist/oracle that prevents known exchange accounts from voting.

I iike the incremental pd idea over 4 weeks, starting low and increasing but I'm going for the simplest method with least code for this HF which is just a parameter change from 13 to 4 weeks, we can go fancy on next HF if needed.

I can facilitate trezor support, will require proposal approval of 20K USD to list steem on shapeshift, then Exodus wallet can integrate and finally, trezor can support steem with a bit of development cost.

@tombstone and @therealwolf both offered valid suggestions but you rejected all of them in favor of rushing a 4 week Powerdown in this hardfork.

If the issue is with SMTs, why not ask @steemit Inc. to add in a 4 week Power Down option for SMT's?

That might be better.

SMT's can't have less of a PD period that the reserve currency STEEM for reasons of not circumventing the parameters of the main token, it is also interesting that you brought that up because by reducing to 4 weeks that gives more options to SMT's down to 4 weeks, otherwise SMT's that use PoB have to have at least 13 weeks staking period and may deter some projects starting on Steem.

As far as I know, the reason of SMTs not being able to Power Down to less than 13 weeks has nothing to do with it "circumventing the base token" but everything to do with Steemit Inc. not yet creating that feature since they want SMTs to be released ASAP.

As far as I know, shorter timeframes will be possible with future SMT's, even if Steem's Power Down time remained 13 weeks.

P.S. I brought up the SMT issue since I read in one of your comments that it is one of the reasons why you are in favor of a 4 week Power Down for Steem 👍

Supported. Powerdown time is not a security feature and shouldn't be treated as a security feature. If a security feature is needed, add a feature similar to the current Savings which applies to stake, and prevents it from being powered down for a period of time, preferably user-determined.


Perfect thanks for supporting, I agree users should set own security. But for purposes of this HF code is already complicated with SMT's so looking for easy win of just param change to 4 weeks to minimise risk of critical bugs in this HF.

I actually treat Steem Power as a security feature and its one of the reasons why I chose Steem over Bitcoin.

But I also support the idea of dynamic staking as suggested by @therealwolf and I wouldn't mind if the savings feature allowed longer hold periods.

Having said that, isn't it good to make the staking periods long, so that exchanges have no way of using the Steem deposited by their clients to vote for witnesses, proposals, or to word it another way, their OWN witnesses, and proposals?

I also want to point out that it's obvious, at least to me, that Shorter Powerdown times would not encourage investors to buy Steem since they can already buy Steem with no Power Down times.

  • It's called Steem (liquid).

Using things that weren't designed as security features as if they were security features is pretty much the least secure thing you can do. This applies both to keeping Steem Power in order to keep from being hacked and making long power-down times to discourage exchanges from powering up.

Powering up was not made for these purposes and there's no reason to believe it will behave well for these purposes just because it apparently has for you so far. This is like using a ziptie to lock your front door when keyed locks are readily available. Sure, nobody's come along and cut it yet.

Powering up was not made for these purposes and there's no reason to believe it will behave well for these purposes just because it apparently has for you so far.

As far as I know, Powering Up was intentionally made long in order to ensure that the people who vote for witnesses and participate on the social aspects of the Steem blockchain have "skin in the game" and I think that definitely applies to exchanges.

Exchanges barely have any skin in the game since their Steem will be other people's money.

This is like using a ziptie to lock your front door when keyed locks are readily available. Sure, nobody's come along and cut it yet.

Not necessarily.

Sometimes it's possible to use things in ways that they were not intended for, and MANY people are using Steem Power as a form of security.

If you increase the holding time possible on the Savings feature BEFORE you decrease the Power Down time, it would erase the need to use Steem Power as as security feature.

But @thecryptodrive is not planning on doing that and I don't think you are either and your comparison of locking your door with a ziptie is not really valid.

A better comparison would be logging your door with a lock that's just as good as a door lock but not intended for doors but was improvised instead since there were no door locks in the town that you resided in (makes sense).

Think about it...

1 week or a few days top would be optimal. 13 weeks serves no real purpose now and is a big discourager to powering up.

agreed, we can't go less than 7 days cause you can powerdown and power up another account and vote twice. 4 weeks seems to be a prudent figure everyone can get behind, later we can reduce if necessary.

I could not find the proposal, perhaps a bit soon for it to show up on the vote list.

I do believe a 4 week time frame would be a grand Idea, I feel this would decrease the amount of stake held in one hand and make it a little more palatable when an investor invested and then decide it just was not for them.

Proposal should be right at the bottom, scroll down.

People can invest in Steem now using liquid Steem without ever having to stake.

AND they can also rent Steem Power just to test things out if they want to see if its for them or not.

I personally think this should be more well thought out and I think @therealwolf's suggestion of dynamic staking is better than a 4 week power down.

This is a great idea. So many of us here have thought about this once or more. It would bring in more investors because personally, I think 13 weeks is a very long time.

But couldn't investors with less of an appetite to have their funds locked, just buy liquid Steem instead?

@thecryptodrive is in favor of eventually making it 7 days by the way, which would completely destroy the distinction between Steem and Steem Power.

You are assuming, no I am not in favour of making it 7 days, it is what some people have suggested and I have just said we start with 4 weeks and see how that works out, clayop and others are keen for 7 days, I am cautious of that, but open to discussing it. Initially I was quite open to 7 days, but after reading comments here I now stand at 4 weeks being a nice balance.

That's actually what I gathered from your comments on this post but I didn't check which of your comments were the most recent @thecryptodrive.

  • I will respect your most recent views on this and thank you for clarifying.

As much as I am not in favor of a 4 week Power Down I would be much more comfortable with it if we applied @tombstone's idea since 1 week is too short of a timeframe for someone to be able to withdraw 25% of our stakes, especially since we use our active keys often.

The idea of increasing the holding periods that are possible, using the Savings Feature, AND blacklisting exchanges from using SP before they ever have a chance to take control would both make a 4 week Power Down more viable IMO.

But exchanges possibly taking control of the Steem blockchain should not be taken lightly IMO, since once they'd gain full control of the blockchain, it would be nearly impossible to take it back from them.. so rough estimates of a 4 week Power Down being enough to deter them isn't good enough IMO.

Thank you though for letting discuss this with you @thecryptodrive.. if I accidentally misrepresent your views I will always accept your corrections 👍

Hello dear friend @thecryptodrive.

I have noticed that each tribe has the possibility to configure its shutdown time, as well as the period for the payout and the distribution of the reward percentage.

User reactions and opinions in this regard should be considered and taken into account, for modifications that may be included in the next HF.

A decrease in shutdown time is necessary. In fact, it is a clamor of users for a long time. Then, the opinion of the users should be taken into account.

A strong investor always wants to feel control over their assets. Having his resources dammed for a period of 13 weeks is not attractive to anyone. Then we will find negative reactions and rejection.

Large crypto investors are looking forward to market behavior and enjoy the flexibility of moving their funds at a given time.

The "hacking protection" speech is over.
The possibility that users can withdraw their assets should not cause negative effects on the price of the currency, on the contrary, this would encourage investment, since very few are willing to compromise their assets for the absurd period of 13 weeks.
Those who trust the blockchain steem will always bring their resources back. They can withdraw them, make their investments and bring it back.

All best, Piotr.

Fully agreed with your sentiment. Thanks dear friend @crypto.piotr

Ahh, so close to success! I just voted with the @agoric.systems voting proxy. Looks like you're just 300k SP shy of success! Just resteemed, as well. I'd love to see this happen and as @smooth was say, I echo the sentiment "I'm all down for even 1 week." So glad it isn't YEARS like it was in the beginning haha.

Another idea I liked that someone was tossing around (I forget who it was, maybe @theycallmedan?) was maybe the possibility to opt to go an immediate powerdown at an expense. The expense being, say, burning 5% or 10% of the stake being powered down for an immediate liquid position. That might be steep, I don't know, but I like the idea of having that as an option a lot.

Thanks for the vote, I hope the change happens. The burn is dangerous cause if a hacker gets hold of your account he can insta draw out all your SP, also means exchanges can power up and use their clients stake to vote themselves in as witness etc, if they need the liquidity they just burn 5% anytime they want.

You are delegating to an account @mmmmkkkk311 who is downvoting me for nothing! So I will downvote your posts of course!
Best regards!

Dear @thecryptodrive

There was also a discussion about adding an instant power down by burning 5-10% of the stake

From user point of view that would be TRAGIC. Powering up means locking your resources for some period of time. Mostly for security reasons (at least that's point of view of a user).

After all even if 3rd party would find a way to sign in with my active or master key, then I don't have to worry that my funds will be completely removed from the account. I have 7 days to notice that power down started and I've 7 days to react.

If instant power down would be available, then my believe that funds on my steem account are safe would be forever gone.

Just like you said:

This has been found to be very dangerous, a hacked account could be instantly drained via this burn mechanism and therefor circumvents any lockup period safety benefits

Yours, Piotr

Correct, I am not endorsing an instant powerdown, I am merely proposing reducing the power down period from 13 to 4 weeks.

A big fat YES!

And it should be 1 week. Absolutely no reason why it should not be 1 week.

And the safety feature some are clammoring about .... don't be idiots. That feature is important in 0.01% of cases and does not justify such a long powerdown and losing so many potential investors.
99% of tokens have no staking and they offer satisfactory safety for your funds.
So this is a non argument.

This is the only thing that could potentially save steem. Not the smts not something else... This.
Save our shitty volume, and attract exchanges and investors.

I can't stress enough how important this change would be.

perfect thanks for your support, 4 weeks is a good interim reduction that will not get too much push back, can look at reducing to 1 week on next HF if this proves to be successful. There is however the risk of exchanges then powering up user stake and voting like on EOS, in such a case we can blacklist exchange accounts from voting.

I think you are forgetting that "investors" who don't like staking can already buy liquid Steem, just like they can with Bitcoin @lordbutterlfy.

@thecryptodrive, I am Supporting this and definitely 4 Weeks makes sense both way. Hope that soon this change will be live and running.

You are right and this is discussed many times, 13 Weeks is very long time and many Investors prefer more Liquid Space.

Yes, more complex changes can make things complex. At this moment this Space needs one change at a time to keep everything smooth.

Have a wonderful time ahead and stay blessed.

Posted using Partiko Android

If investors prefer liquid cryptos, they can always buy Liquid Steem.

I think you forgot about that 😕

Thank you for sharing your inputs. Stay blessed.

Perfect thanks so much for your vote!

Welcome and thank you. 🙂

Posted using Partiko Android

4 weeks or even shorter is okay 👍 inflation has to be solved too, but this is another topic ;) (SBD and reward pool induced inflation)

I do not think that your premise for the proposal is proven. It may be correct (or not) but we need data and not take this decision lightly. Since my response is getting too long I decided instead to write a post about it.

I agree with the exchange risk, I think 4 weeks will deter them enough. We can also blacklist exchange accounts from voting as part of steem chain policy. We can't prove whether 4 weeks will stimulate investment, it is a hypothesis, only by testing and experimenting can we prove or disprove the hypothesis and adjust accordingly. 4 weeks is a good starting point.

Who would maintain such a blacklist? Are you seriously suggesting that blacklisting votes for witnesses in DPOS is acceptable policy?

it is acceptable if it is exchanges imo, who hold user's funds and using them to vote without express permission. blacklist could be witness updated via softfork or something, preferrably consensus based.

Active witnesses deciding who can't vote for witnesses, what could possibly go wrong???

Point taken, some other general community consensus then like the steemproposals.

We wouldn't be able to blacklist exchanges as easily as you think, especially if they dug in their heals and voted for their own witnesses using the stakes of their depositors.

Hi @thecryptodrive

I've decided to check out your profile to see if you posted anything interesting lately. And I was wondering - why you're so quiet?

Hope you didn't give up on Steemit yet.
Yours, Piotr

Hey friend, I am active behind the scenes. I have a personal project @sbdpotato which i do posts on everyday and still involved in BuildTeam with dlease.io and Ginabot and a few services.

Thx for your reply @thecryptodrive. I've never heard about @sbdpotato - will check this project right away.

Is dlease popular after hf21?

May I ask you for little favour? I'm not sure if I did ask you about it already or not (hope I'm not repeating myself).

Could you please check out also my recent post if you have few min and share your thoughts on questions related to concept of "introducing steem blockchain to businesses":

Your feedback is always appreciated ;) And I will upvote most valuable comment with 100-200k SP coming from project.hope account.
Yours, Piotr

Cool no problem, just voted and commented.

Yeah Dlease.io is still popular, with 3200+ active leases, only the interest earned has dropped to around 12%.

Good morning @thecryptodrive

I just realized that I never thanked you for your previous comment. BIG THX! :)

Also - would you mind if I take few minutes of your time? (I hope I'm not asking this question to often ;)

Anyway .... together with few core members of project.hope team - we'te trying to promote our recent publication: an article explaining economy behind our non-profit community project build on STEEM blockchain.

Perhaps I could ask you to spare few minutes and check it out and share your feedback with me.

I would absolutely appreciate it a lot. I read all comments and I drop solid upvote on each valuable one.

Link: https://steemit.com/hive-175254/@project.hope/3-ways-of-joining-our-efforts-project-hope-economy-explained

Yours, Piotr

@thecryptodrive there are thousands of stolen keys floating around this blockchain so a periodic key change should also be addressed. Please look into this as I have no real voice on this platform at the moment https://steemit.com/spam/@throwbackthurs/steemengineteam-leading-lambs-to-the-slaughter

periodic key change is not a bad idea, like an annual password reset, also has risk of user locking himself out on key change :)

Yes, exactly what we need.

Why do we need to decrease the Power Down time for "investors"?

  • Anyone and everyone already has the option of buying liquid Steem without it ever getting staked.

So is this proposal still good even after the edit statement related to hacking? 🤔 Is that a minor thing?

Posted using Partiko Android

Yeah still good, the edit was related to having a feature to pay like 5% Steem burn for insta powerdown, that is dangerous. 4 weeks pd is fine

Four weeks is still too long. It should be lowered to one week.

3 seconds will be fine, but then we don’t need any steem power. We will just have steems only.

Exactly 😂

What's the point of decreasing the staking time for Steem Power if we already have liquid Steem?

I’m in support, although not necessarily as part of the next hardfork. I’m not a hard no on that, but I’m concerned about adding complexity and risk to an already complex and risky hardfork (SMTs).

Sure valid point, however it will just be a parameter change coupled with a cancellation of existing pd's so risk is low. We want to reduce number of HF's to not upset exchanges, imo next HF is still a good time, please vote for this proposal if you are in support.

I dislike this proposal.

One of the reasons why I chose Steem is because I can lock it up for 13 weeks.

Posted using Partiko Android

This post has been upvoted by witness @untersatz. You've done a great job!
The @untersatz witness and manual curation is under the guidance of @contrabourdon and @organduo.
Current VP: 69.52%

Why do you think it's a great idea?

With all the people powering down and struggling with the #newsteem protocols, I'm not sure this is the best time to implement it. I'm all for it, but feel the timing is off.

I think if stakeholders wanted to exit they would have done so already, many have been here way longer than 13 weeks.

How can having more short term investors who try to squeeze as much value as they can out of the steem until they leave at the first sign of trouble(thus intensifying every price drop) in any way aid the value of steem?

That’s the reality of investing, same happens on BTC they dump when they see risk ahead and buy again when things are looking positive, the point is they keep creating liquidity and market activity, with a long pd cycle we will have stagnant market conditions and we will make steem less attractive for both long and short term investors.

That's not true.. Steem is liquid!

It's only Steem Power that's stake and anyone and everyone already has the option of entering and exiting Steem as they please?

Just like Bitcoin.. there is no need to stake if a user is just a trader.

There was also a discussion about adding an instant power down by burning 5-10% of the stake

Nice idea to burn more steem!

We decided that was a bad idea for account security, if your account gets hacked, hacker can burn to get all funds out.

Add another layer of security then. This should most definitely be a feature. Catering to those very few irresponsible to the detriment of the whole platform is extremely foolish.
And they are very very few.

@guiltyparties deals with lots of hack incidents and it is more rife than I thought. Extra layer of security would have to be 2FA or hardware wallet but that is not very easy to implement, especially integrating with a hardware wallet.

Agreed and voted from Steemhunt! Thanks for the great proposal.

I absolutely agree with you!

Definitely in favour. When you Power Down, that Steem is then somewhere and nowhere and anything can happen during that time. If anything were to happen and you were to lose that Steem, the longer it's in that limbo place, the higher chances of losing that Steem. I get that it would incetivise people to keep that Steem as Steem Power, but some people need that Steem, either for purchases on the Steem blockchain, or because it's their income. Reduced power down time means increased security of actually getting that Steem as Steem at the end of that fourth week.

I'm sorry to the witnesses whom I've supported for a long time but I can't keep voting for you guys if you support this proposal. To me removing the long term commitment aspect of Steem Power would be the antithesis of what Steem is about.

4 weeks is still rather a long lock-up period, Whaleshares has a very long staking period and afaik hasn't really helped them much. People should take the long-term view voluntarily rather than forcefully at blockchain level. If the concern is that existing investors would divest, they have had plenty of time to do so already, especially those here since 2016, they have had many full 13 week cycles as opportunity to divest fully.

4 weeks provides no financial incentive at all for voters to be concerned for how their voting affects the long term value of their investment - they can always divest within 4 weeks and have little incentive to bed concerned for the long term health of the network. Unlike Bitcoin, there is no investment in physical hardware that will become worthless if the network does; there needs to be some other mechanism for tying voters interest to the long term health of the network

Not sure, for myself it doesn't matter, I wouldn't dump my SP even if the vesting period was shorter. It comes down to us wanting people who want to be here voluntarily rather than people who are stuck here because of long vesting period, i would rather those people be gone.

People DO take the long-term lockup volunterily.

Everyone that doesn't want their Steem staked, can simply buy liquid Steem.

Thats an interesting idea. But what will affect the price of steaks? because the time to draw 'deposit' steem power was made short which previously was 13 weeks to 4 weeks. Indeed, for a personal scale like me, it can be profitable. But what about the impact on the big scale steak?
By the way, I aggree about reduce power down period to 4 weeks :)

I don't understand, i don't think the price of Steem/SP will change, just the staking period will change. The voting power and utility of the stake remains the same.

Dear @thecryptodrive

Any clue where of 13 weeks power down came from in the first place? there must be a reason why it's 13, not 4. Just curious


52 weeks in a year means 13 weeks is 1/4year. 4 weeks means 1/13 a year.
It's not a coincidence =)

Dear @abitcoinskeptic

I just realized that I never read and thanked you for this comment. Somehow I've skipped it. So ... late thx :)

May I ask you for little favour? I'm not sure if I did ask you about it already or not (hope I'm not repeating myself).

Could you please check out also my recent post if you have few min and share your thoughts on questions related to concept of "introducing steem blockchain to businesses":

Your feedback is always appreciated ;) And I will upvote most valuable comment with 100-200k SP coming from project.hope account.
Yours, Piotr

4 weeks is still long. I prefer 1 week.
I think a long period of unstaking is not helpful to people who want to invest steem. And also Steem should introduce a way to burn the already issued coins.

I don't think many people will vote for 1 week due to risk of losing all funds in a hack.

There is always the option of buying liquid Steem.

And I see no reason why investors would be scared of a 13 week Power Down when they can just buy liquid Steem.

I think this post confused some people into thinking, or forgetting, that liquid Steem is always available for people who don't want their $$ locked.

I notice STEEM POWER hovers around 60 to 70% of stotal Steem.
This means 30~40% is liquid. That is enough in my opinion and I am not aware of any shortage. Who knows if cha ging this ratio to be lower (more sp) is good?

More people are already powering down than powering up on a daily basis recently. I don't know if this is good or bad. Changing dyanics to encourage further power ups may also encourage further power downs.

SP is used for important things like sps voting rewards and witnesses, allowing exchanges to swoop in and 'experiment' for a 4 week delay instead of a 13 week delay may be a death blow because it will allow quick and potentially devestating attacks..

Changing the powerdown from 1/4 a year to 1/13 a year seems like too much risk for too little rewards.

Moving inflation from just holding sp over to the 3 days saving bank may be a safer option. Can profit from this withoutntoo much influemce and reduction in liquidity. option.

Moving inflation to savings is certainly interesting but it would have to be to the Steem savings not SBD savings, as inflation on SBD would make the peg worse.

I think tweaking the sbd bank to take steem as well would be a worthwhile option to explore. Call it Steem Power Lite if you will.

I don't think there is a particular rush to move powerdowns to 4 weeks. We have no data to support this will help SMTs because those are a long term investment even compared to 13 weeks. So holding it until a year or so later if the prices don't increase is another option.

I just have a feeling that lowering it to 4 weeks will turn Steem more into a speculative asset. There are hundreds of other cryptocurrencies doing this already.

This post has been resteemed by @witnessnews.

Follow @witnessnews to keep up with active witness updates.

Congratulations @thecryptodrive! You have completed the following achievement on the Steem blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :

Your post was the most commented on one day

You can view your badges on your Steem Board and compare to others on the Steem Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word STOP

To support your work, I also upvoted your post!

Vote for @Steemitboard as a witness to get one more award and increased upvotes!

Hi @thecryptodrive!

Your post was upvoted by @steem-ua, new Steem dApp, using UserAuthority for algorithmic post curation!
Your UA account score is currently 8.400 which ranks you at #17 across all Steem accounts.
Your rank has not changed in the last three days.

In our last Algorithmic Curation Round, consisting of 75 contributions, your post is ranked at #3. Congratulations!

Evaluation of your UA score:
  • Your follower network is great!
  • The readers like your work!
  • Try to work on user engagement: the more people that interact with you via the comments, the higher your UA score!

Feel free to join our @steem-ua Discord server

I'm relatively new here so forgive the naive tone of this question.

How many accounts and how must Steem have been saved from malicious actors by the lock down? Ballpark?

Nobody is there to save me if I post my bitcoin passphrase on line, why is a safety net needed here?

I believe is a good idea and I am going to vlog about it this morning.

Posted using Partiko Android

Supports your opinion

Voted for visibility and burned rewards. This vote is not a yes or no regarding the proposal.

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.21