My proposal: reduce the withdraw channel from 104 weeks to 104 days or even 104 hours to make steemit less like a ponzi scheme
A lot of whales are powering down , even @ned @dantheman is doing the same with their's personal account, if you all want to exit so badly , why not free yourself?
At least, the market would find it's balance more quickly.
And, i believe this is one of the main reason that some of the potential investors hesitated to buy STEEM.
@sykochica
I'm with laonie on this one. You could even limit this to the investors.
Personally I can see safety in tying up author reward SP for a longer period. Like in the case of plagiarists who'd cut and run with everything they could. Or in the positive sense of earned author reward SP that's locked in longer getting some people to look a bit farther ahead or feel more invested.
@gomeravibz
yes exactly @laonie i have invested quite a bit of real money into steem power because it is the driving force behind the steem machine surely. I want this too !! But the powering down is too long for us real believers who have put their money where their mouth is. Whereas the people who have invested little but can write get it all and then run to the bank taking all the value with them. It does seem a bit hard on us true believer who have chosen to walk the walk here in this community !! great point i upvote this idea !!
@kimziv
The liquidity is terrible , if the withdraw time is shortor, i will buy more.
I'll play the devil's advocate and argue the other side.. The two year limit was put in place for a reason. It was to separate the short term traders, who do a lot of market manipulation from the long-term investors. By locking up around 95% of the Steem in a 2 year contract, the overall market cap is able to remain a lot more stable - which is needed in order for everything to work. If the entire market cap of Steem was a liquid asset that people could buy, hold, and then dump huge volumes of Steem at a time. The market manipulators would be able to run the show.
That's not even the only reason. There are structural reasons within the system as well. For example, if you can power down quickly and then power up into another account, you can vote twice with the same stake.
"Better solution: you put your money where your mouth is, buy it up, and hold it."
It would be much more efficient to just send the money right to you... ... this statement is absolutely disgraceful.
You Sir, should be ashamed of yourself.
Not much more no, only by the 1% or so that is accounted for by exchange fees. Bottom line: The difference between telling someone else they should not sell, and you going out and buying yourself is that talk is cheap and only the latter involves putting your own real money on the line.
OK. So then show some transparency, as @ats-david suggests. Where is the money being spent? Who is getting what? Where does it go? How many developers are on the docket? What are they earning? Is it enough? :0)
@smooth, you are one of the whales a lot of people tend to like (except for recently when you censored @dennygalindo for comparing @steemit to synereo...I was not really a fan of that move. You're entirely entitled to your opinions, but that made you seem more like you had some kind of pact with the Steemit poker club and you'd be watching over us like Big Brother. It also gave us the impression you weren't actually confident enough in Steemit to let it speak for itself. I like to think you meant well.
You do keep us in line, though (like when you temporarily voted down @steve-walschot for unintentionally vote-buying...when he was trying to be supportive of the minnows: https://steemit.com/steemit/@steve-walschot/how-my-best-intentions-almost-lead-to-a-flagged-account-by-smooth.)
We want/need to trust the direction of Steemit, and the CLOSEST thing we have to that is tracking the moves of the whales. There is a "warrent buffeet" effect here. It's the same with any major corporation...the big guy makes a decision, the little guys follow.
You curate a lot. You contribute a lot. People listen to you. We see you as an individual: less sea creature, more human being. You have voted for 340 unique writers here. (@berniesanders has voted for more than double that, but I don't know how many of those went to sock puppets...so it could be a cheap number...but I digress)
You hold 16% of the voting influence here, if you include @smooth.witness. And this is no small feat. (stats here: https://steemit.com/stats/@clayop/how-much-do-whales-influences-on-rewards-introducing-new-statistics
Investors need transparency. We also like to know things, such as whether there should be rules against sock-puppet accounts, and what the business plans are for the next two years, five years, ten years.
What are your thoughts?
The Release Candidate is great, but a little "what's coming next and why" from the owners couldn't hurt anyone. And a little more, easily accessible, transparency with top earners/investors couldn't hurt anyone either.
Agreed, or not?
You will have to take that up with the Steemit team (Ned for example). I'm not affiliated with the team and I'm just a user and investor here, just like you (albeit an investor with a larger holding).
All right. I'll tell you what. If you were my broker, would you recommend I invest here? At the current rate of decline?
The only way I currently see an investment worth doing is if it gave me enough steem power to trend a story and give me some ROI on the vote. That could be tens of thousands of dollars, considering the top-heavy nature of the trend economy.
But I don't know much. You've been here from the get go. Would you be able to make any other recommendations for me as to why anything less than several thousand dollars would be a worthwhile investment?
If so, make that argument and I'll listen. I am all ears.
[replying from lower nested comment]
IMO there is only one reason to invest in this platform and that is because you think the investment will go up in value. Investing for rewards or influence is largely a losing game at this point (possibly that could change in the future, with a much larger user base, but at this point who really cares about influence over content seen by 1000-2000 users?). Remember, all the rewards are being paid by investors. That means when you buy in they come out of your investment as well. It makes no sense to buy in for rewards when it means you are paying out more as well. There is no free lunch and value is not created out of thin air, even of tokens can be.
Currently the market cap of Steem is less than $100 million. If you think it has the potential to grow to say $1 billion or more (as a recent trending post claimed), then it is a good investment whether you buy a large amount or a small amount.
I will not tell you whether or not that is going to happen. You will have to make up your own mind.
Yeah - there's no reason to be in Steem Power if you don't want to hold long-term. The problem isn't that powering down takes too long. The problem is that the initial "investors" are trying to cash out before the platform can sustain itself - because it's still in beta/development.
The largest stakeholders have jumped the gun on selling and now they want to be let off the hook for it. If they were worried about bringing in new investors, they would not have started dumping their holdings so quickly.
Steemit isn't ready for what has been happening with powering down and dumping on the external market. It's just that simple.
Whales are not one homogeneous well policed group that makes decisions as a quorum. Whales are individual, independent selfish rational economic agents. Even if 99% of the whales were doing the right thing and holding their stake, there would still be a more short term minded selfish 1% that would be dumping, and it's that 1% who would reap all the rewards of everyone else's effort. Since every whale is aware of that, and everyone prefers being in the 1% who are selfish rather than the 99% who are being screwed by the 1%, everyone acts selfishly. That's a known behavioral / game theoretic phenomenon called the tragedy of the commons. The only way to avoid that is to design the rules of the system in such a way that stake holders best interests are always aligned regardless of their short or long time preference, and always lead them to safeguard and nurture the common resources (here liquidity and user satisfaction). That's what @ned and @dan are trying to do by tweaking the rules, with lukewarm results so far.
This is the one reason I have been less than impressed with the business model. I appreciate the 104 day holding, for sustainability and growth. I think most of us are all for it in principle. And I'm not opposed to people investing real money, and investors powering down. What I'm NOT ok with is how investors get little to nothing of what they invest, and whales, or should we call them sharks, are running off with the loot. If there were a cap, or whale restraint demonstrating a little more long-term intention for bringing in new investors, the 104 holding wouldn't be a big deal. I expressly did NOT invest my own money in this system because I saw the current trend as a potential casualty for me. Call my cynical. Had I seen a greater potential for ROI as a general trend for initial investors, you BET I would have. I feel angry for people who have put their eggs in the basket and watched as their steem goes out to pay less "deserving" candidates who either write crappy stuff, or who never invested in the first place (like me). I value this platform, I believe in it more than anyone, I put long hours into my mining, and I'm investing my sweat, but it's pyramid at best with the current power downs. Even without the power downs, it would still be very top heavy. But I still think we can change that, with initiatives like @robinhoodwhale, and with smaller networks coming up from the ranks and building a middle class. When we move up in ranks, WE can reward the minnows and initial investors, and create a better balance in this unstable ecosystem. I don't think we're doomed. I think we're just dealing with a very typical human-run system. Them's the shakes. But it'll work itself out. It won't ever be fair. Their will always be gamers, cheaters, bamboozlers, and greedy bastards. But it will still find a way to level out a bit. I like to think.
I am all for the holdings though. I'd do it even if it was not required. I like keeping my SP steadily growing. It is important for the economy.
The 104-day power down timeline is necessary for currency stability, according to the whitepaper. If you eliminate that, then the Steem likely free-falls.
I've been saying for a while now that the whales have been selling prematurely. We all know that this is a work in progress. Whales know it. Minnows know it. Everyone outside of the platform knows it. The biggest problem we're facing isn't necessarily the powering down - it's the actual selling on the external markets. It has happened too quickly. There's not enough demand for Steem, let alone Steem Power. People aren't going to power up to SP if they don't even want Steem. There needs to be interest and confidence in both the platform and the currency from users and investors alike. There needs to be more development.
Unfortunately, many of the whales started powering down and selling their Steem. Since the project is still in beta and still in need of a lot more development, it sends the wrong signal to investors and users. Would you invest in a company that hasn't gone public yet if the preferred stock holders were already selling off their stake before the final product was even ready for market? That's where Steemit is right now. This platform is not really market-ready. We are all essentially initial investors right now trying to build and market the product before the IPO. And when the largest invested among us are looking to exit their positions, it doesn't instill any confidence to other investors who might want to get in - especially when the product is still in dire need of further development.
That being said, I'm not pulling out my SP and don't plan to pull it out. In fact, I really don't even see it as mine. And currently, there's no reason for me to convert more SBD to SP. The amounts are so small that they won't make much of a difference anyway. As a writer, I have no desire to invest my own money into a platform where I'm not really that visible and need to rely on a random vote from a whale in order to earn anything. So, I'll play the waiting game and accumulate what I can while I actually try to curate good content.
I hope that this platform figures things out and is successful. But it's going to take an entirely different attitude and approach from those who are much more heavily invested. I get that they want to make money, but at the same time, they have to get this place developed properly or else all of that curating and powering down will mean nothing. It'll all be worthless. And there's no indication that any of them comprehend this.
There's a simple solution here:
Stop powering down and selling off large chunks of Steem. Redirect some of the Steem into platform development (which is being done to some extent). Improve the marketing (which is practically non-existent) to draw in new users. And most importantly - BE MORE TRANSPARENT.
We get a lot of posts about possible developments and tweaking voting/rewards, but we need more than that. There needs to be more communicating about why the powering down is happening, where the money is going, what the short and long-term plans are for those projects, and how they plan to draw in new users and investors. I get that this is decentralized, but it needs to be run more like a business and less like a Friday night poker game with your buddies. Sure, poker night is fun, but you're not really generating any revenues. This platform needs revenue - as in, buyers of Steem. Find ways to get people to buy. Get this place developed. Stop scaring people away with bad decisions and bad/non-existent marketing.
Better solution: you put your money where your mouth is, buy it up, and hold it.
"The 104-day power down timeline is necessary for currency stability, according to the whitepaper. If you eliminate that, then the Steem likely free-falls."
Have you seen the chart ? This is forced manipulation. Without the 104day powerdown there would have been a smaller "pump" and therefore a more stable currency.
[replying to your comment elsewhere that is too deeply nested]
I agree with you. You are obviously both passionate individuals who have a lot to add. Focus on bringing value and not complaining constantly. Whales are here, they're going to do things you don't like, and there isn't anything you can do about it. Complaining about them is like complaining about the weather, or your job, or your wife. No one really wants to hear it, most among those who don't are new users who will be attracted by a positive environment and repelled by a negative one.
The influence of whales will decline over time, just as the influence of dolphins (both existing and new) and mini-whales will increase. That is the best that can be achieved. Both of you, please try to focus your passions and efforts in a positive direction.
Exactly.
There is nothing we can do about it. Redistribution is already happening and whilst people keep complaining about the falling price of Steem this is really helping with it.
If you want more influence start helping people and working on building the community. You can also take advantage of the low Steem price to power up as I have been doing.
Give it time and I am confident that the whales will become less important for success.
@ats-david - It may not be as much of a problem as you think. As you pointed out - the site is still in beta. Other than the price completely crashing to the point that it dies, we should not really worry about the price that much right now. Once the site is more complete (which will probably be another year or two), then we should worry about the price and attracting serious investors. For now, everything is just getting started.
No matter how low the price goes (unless it goes completely to zero) - a lower price just means more opportunity for minnows/whales to increase their stake at a lower cost.
You should check out the post Down Down We Go – And why that might not be a bad thing
Well, it isn't only the price. It's the almost complete lack of interest for users and investors alike. The user base needs to grow. If it doesn't, the inflation will kill everything too quickly. We need a steady increase in users but the users aren't coming - and when they do, they mostly don't stay. When you don't have users or investors, there's not a lot that can be done. We need better/faster social media-friendly development and better marketing.
Really the development is what needs to come first. Once the site is out of beta, the users will come and the investors will follow.
lol right now there are only 2 market manipulators and I think you can guess who they are... This post is a great idea and I've been saying the same from the beginning. Locking people up for 104 weeks does a few things:
1- tricks some people
2- when people find out they are locked in they get mad or leave
3- locking people in is effectively trying to manipulate the market (in the end the market will decide)
4- why not let the FREE market determine the value of the platform, not tricks and larinomics
5- the argument smooth makes about voting with multiple accounts makes ZERO sense if the power down period is more than 24hrs... so 104hrs or 104days works. Also a rule could be put in place that does not allow a user to vote with new steempower for 24-48hrs (delaying the vote power like locking up staked coins for a #of confirmations)
6- I believe with almost 100% certainty the power down time will change but the large holders need to cash out more first. Then they will change the time limit stating is was "DEMANDED BY USERS" lolol of course this was all part of the plan but I'm one of the few people who see the big economic picture.
As I've said before, this platform is great, unfortunately the economics incentives "larinomics" are highly flawed.
Time will tell...
The initial voting period for a post can extend for up to two weeks (especially if someone has an incentive to deliberately extend it) and the second voting period runs for 30 more days. One of the most widely requested changes from authors is to extend voting even longer so they can continue to be paid for work which has long-term value. That sits in direct contradiction to making the vesting period shorter.
Well you've described at least one flaw in the platform that's new to me, but its not that which bothers me.
It's the Larinomics that bothers me
Maybe if you described your objections without using some sort of self-invented pejorative label, you might be taken more seriously by impartial readers, which in this case happens to include myself. (I'd also have a better chance of understanding what the hell you are talking about.)
I have no preexisting agenda in favor of any Larimer or their views but the approach you are using tends to encourage me to dismiss your opinions as trolling and instead, at least on the margin, to support them, probably the opposite of what you intend.
@smooth, this comment makes us wonder if you DO have a preexisting agenda in favor of Larimer. You get all defensive for Dan all the damn time. I don't think he was being pejorative. Just clever.
So what gives? Are you and @dan related? Or do you just believe really strongly in the cause? Or both?
If you're related, heck, I wish my big brother defended me like that. If you believe in the cause, wouldn't you agree a little more transparency could go a long way and that investors would feel a little more confident if they could see the numbers of those who invest and earn, where the money goes, how it's bettering the economy here, what some plans are for decentralization, what technical developments are underway, etc.
Wouldn't you also agree that a little more transparency might discourage certain whales from gaming the system, making it more fair for other well-meaning whales, and minnows alike?
Interesting idea.
I don't think people are powering-down because they want out. They do it, because they can't freely sell. But they could rebuy at any time if they powered down, so the best thing to do if one holds a lot of SP is to power down ASAP. Everyone wants the forbidden fruit.
For this same reason i haven't bought any steem yet. Why should i ? If i bought, the first thing i'd do with them is to power-down. I'm going to wait for the powerdowns and inflation to do its works, and then when/if steem breaks out of it's downtrend i'll buy.
Insightful.
This post is dumb. The reason the 104 week withdrawal period exists is because STEEM is getting inflated at a staggering 100% per year to pay the authors & curators. The 104 week period is the only thing holding the price up. Without it, the STEEM price goes to zero and the whole thing collapses.
With full respect guys. If you want to solve the problem of liquidity then let's solve the problem . It is not a good idea to serve paracetamol and orange juice if arm is broken.
I wrote about few solutions. for example here in comments liquidity
also here liquidity2
poloniex and bittrex are sitting on the tons of STEEM and SBD. They have part of equity but they are doing nothing so far. If i understand well those money was given to prevent free falls because they do not hold SP at all. am I right ? tell me. I don't know nothing about deals between P&B and founders but I am not so sure if there is any emergency scenario. Maybe they think that situation is not that bad. It is at least curious because all market cap depend on few ridiculously small trades on the market with low liquidity. I am sure there are plenty of solutions how to solve this.
internal market is dead but not due low liquidity. It is by lack of interest or time to build a proper one. internal market needs upgrade. Adding BTC should be a priority but anyways In my opinion this is not a problem of liquidity.
Frankly, I don't care about withdrawal period because I am happy to see how this system works. I am just curious why is problem still here when was discovered 2 months ago.
most important thing is, that lot of Steem has been sold. So maybe there is some budget how to fix the price. Only think I am not sure of it is needed. for me is low price ok. I I don't care. I would like to see improvements in here. not on the market. I want to be sure this project is well funded.
Another suggestion, especially aimed at small investors, would be a minimum power down allowance.
Agree with you, right know I need money but I can't withdraw because the x10 fee is not reached yet
I understand your reasoning but personally I feel that the reason for the delay is sound. Changing it now would cause mass panic and make it easier for speculators to use Steem for day trading. Whilst this might help the price in the short term I suspect the long term effect will be detrimental.
I upvoted you b/c that's precisely why I bought SP. I did not want to deal with the short term pumpers and dumpers. There's plenty of alt coins that will allow you to buy and sell no limits. Steem also gives you the same opportunity to trade it. Powering up you is your choice.
Completely with you here. I want to keep my holdings in place as they grow. I believe in this crazy platform.
So what you are proposing is allowing the minnows and dolphins to power down over a shorter period of time? It doesn't sound like a bad idea but im not too sure that would work..Wouldn't that cause too much liquidity in the platform forcing steemit to die..? IDK just curious :D
I completely agree. Let the weak hands dump! Great article again, Laonie.