You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: To Devs: Why Restrict Steem Power Transfer? @dantheman
If the person buying Vests bought them only to power them down, it would have an effect on the value of Steem. People will be watching the amount of vests powering down, and if it gets very high, they will short Steem because they predict it will fall, causing it to fall early. But if they bought them to use the accounts, it would have little impact on the economy.
In that case the powering down period can be made longer. Or there could be a hard cap on how much Vests you can liquidate.
That defeats the purpose of the power down functionality. Sort of "renegotiates" the deal. I wouldn't vote for a witness that tried to make that happen, and I don't think whales would either.
But the power down % and period, is already presumably set for economic stability. So if Vest transfers lead to excessive powering down, surely it would stand to reason to adjust power down % amount and/or period? Since the original reasoning was to create favourable economic conditions anyways?
Nobody wants the rules changed on them, when it affects them. That could cause people who weren't powering down before to start doing it, because they lost faith in the platform.
Not really. If there's a market for selling Vest titles, the fastest exit for the majority of users will always be to sell titles.
Only whales may power down. But even then it wouldn't make much sense, if there's low confidence, provided there was sufficient liquidity in the Vest title exchange.
And as I said the effect of powering down on the wider economy can be mitigated.
Any system that is created praying and hoping users won't use a function is not well created.
And I do not believe freedom should be restricted when it's not necessary to maintain security. In this case it's not necessary to restrict Vest title transfers, and it takes away basic property rights.