PROPOSAL: REDUCE POWERDOWN FROM 13 WEEKS to 5 WEEKS.
When I powered up, it was an investment with a 2-year commitment to stay onboard. Well, they changed that rather quickly to 13 weeks with payout every 7th days. Now I think it is time to renew this proposal and lower the numbers by a lot.
Currently the powerdown is 13 weeks paid out every 7th day.
I suggest the powerdown period to be changed to 5 weeks paid out every 5th day to better match undelegation, and also make account split/power down one account and power up another account faster)
This will also create a better incentive to dare to power up more SteemPower, I hope there is support for such a change now after 2.7 years since STEEM was born.
Current Consensus & others:
@gtg, @timcliff, @good-karma, @jesta, @roelandp, @ausbitbank, @someguy123, @smooth, @lukestokes, @blocktrades, @followbtcnews, @curie, @clayop, @drakos, @xeldal, @thecryptodrive, @cervantes, @utopian-io, @anyx, @pfunk, @yabapmatt, @ned, @sircork, @whatsup, @nextgencrypto
Thank you.
Sincerely,
@fyrstikken / @fyrst-witness
I wouldn’t oppose an even shorter vesting period, to make things simple; what about 5 days for everything - powerdown, post payout, undelegation.
I think a shorter vesting period would reduce investor risk in uncertain markets, and is a sign that we believe in the value of our token and don’t have to force the value artificially with long vesting periods. I think EOS has just a 3 day vesting period? Not 100% sure on that.
5 days for everything and maybe even fewer days... I like it. I put 5 days since that is the regeneration time on vote power, but everything is possible. It is after all just software :)
Great Post @Fyrstikken...
Short, Sweet AND to the Point...and easy 2 understand.
I know I'd put more Investment $$$ into Steemit because it's essentially what @SirCork says below... it would be more like having a Savings Account but not having to WAIT 13 WEEKS to get Your money....
Thank You @Fyrstikken !!
You just can’t have the powerdown shorter than the post payout period in order to avoid double voting by powering up another account and voting again.
The quickest and easiest change would be to change vesting period to 7 days and not alter the post payout period, however shorter payout period promotes constant fresh content.
People do not vote much on day 3,4,5 and 6 so to have payout on day 5 also makes a lot of sense. Constant fresh content and tougher competition... I like it, but it requires a 5 day rewardpool, and las time we changed rewardpool it took us one month to regenerate... I wonder however if it would be a problem. People would just get a higher upvote until the rewardpool have adjusted down to 5 days... Interesting twist.
Yeah, agreed... posts are stagnating on trending currently, even some upvote bots limit vote purchase to first 2-3 days, I’m sure many families in poorer countries would want their rewards sooner.
Yes last time we went from 24 hours to 7 days, means rewards pool needed time to fill up, reducing to 5 days will be the reverse, slightly higher at first and then stabilise.
Hi, I'm deeply concerned with the idea of a 50/50 reward scheme...
The numbers just don't add up. At least this not where we are supposed to be driving the platform. Please read this post, I would love to have your feedback on the subject.
Tbh I’m concerned about it as well which is why I proposed if something like this is going to move ahead, at least start with 60/40 to test. Higher curation split favours larger stakeholders and may create a larger divide in our economy. Also it messes with the author funding models of apps like fundition and utopian. That being said, I don’t think such changes will be pushed in the short term as Steemit Inc is committed to completing other items on their roadmap.
The issue is that it will hit the long-term success rate of the platform. We will need always to attract and keep incentivizing new users for this place to have any value. But with this scheme, that possibility is really jeopardized :(
Good point.
This is correct.
Thank You so much for coming up with this proposal. Over the years, Steemit has inproved a lot. However, 13 weeks time is way more duration to receive one's payment. 5 weeks is considerably a better way to do it and everybody would love this. Additionally, it will help to get more eyeballs and users for Steemit. Thanks again @fyrstikken.
Steem On!
I echo my consensus, shorter power downs would help everyone, and hurt no one, really. It would entice me to put more IN, actually, knowing I could use it more like a savings account that I can draw on in emergencies, and larger investors like their rapid liquidity as well. Please focus more on this than on 50/50 moving targets...
Well thought out comments @SirCork.... AND of course....
GREAT Post @Fyrstikken !!
Cheers 2 You BOTH !!
I would prefer shorter power downs, too. That said, you lose security the shorter you make the power down period. If the power down window were, let's say 2 days, then you'll see big SP holders who get phished and have their entire SP holdings converted into liquid Steem and cashed out before they even have a chance to notice (coming back from their weekend or vacation or what-have-you), whereas, they would be able to save all of that SP if they could regain the account from the hacker before 7 days are up with the current parameters.
You could have an option to lock SP much as we have "savings" for liquid coins now.
Simple enough solution, I suppose.
Still, though. The lock period being shorter than the current power down period makes it inherantly less secure, for the same reasons that I stated in the first post (less time for any potential hacker to convert your account's total value to liquid Steem).
But, as I alluded in that post, there is a real, and quite obvious, security/ usability tradeoff and I lean towards a much shorter powerdown window, despite the inherent risks with that. I'd personally prefer a month powerdown (4 weekly powerdowns) over a seven day, but that's mostly because I'm overly cautious when it comes to protecting my investments, and doubly so when they're outside of my physical possession, and quadruply so when they're cryptographically secured between a network of nodes.
I can handle the frustration of having to wait an extra 3 weeks, given the peace of mind of being 100% certain that a blackhat won't be spending all of my funds before I get back from my week's vacation.
I say, 7 days for 20% powerdown (= 5 weeks till its complete)
I think 25% makes more sense. A month per full power down seems more intuitive (palatable).
That seems like a much more attractive proposal for investors than any I've heard so far. And personally it would encourage me to stay and wait out the 50/50 bs if I can get out immediately if it looks like happening.
In terms of blockchain attacks/bloat anything more than immediate ought to be effective, and powering down all at once would cut down on ops. Make it four hours.
The one potential hangup I can see is the potential for a run on the currency, but I'm not sure that's important at this point.
If you could earn better returns as a stakeholder through curation, you would want to leave?
Why do you assume that things would be so horrible if invested users could earn more for investing? Wouldn’t this be attractive to those looking for better ROI, consequently bringing in a larger pool of users and buyers of STEEM? Or do you assume that most investors and social media users are bloggers who want to spend their time making posts that will likely go unread and unrewarded by the vast majority of users here and around the web?
The larger market is clearly content consumers, not creators. Making our blockchain more attractive for them is what will drive growth and positive price action...which, in turn, can greatly benefit content creators.
This fear of evenly splitting rewards between creators and curators for the contributions that both make is silly. It’s a symbiotic relationship. There’s no need to make it contentious by making it seem as if invested curators making better returns is evil but non-invested creators making money is righteous.
So if 50/50 rewards is scary and distasteful to you and you’d rather leave instead of adjust to a fairer system for everyone (especially those buying STEEM and making your posting rewards valuable in the first place), then that’s cool with me. You wouldn’t be the first person to rage-quit...then miss out on massive capital appreciation and regret their emotional decision.
Yep. I'll make a post with the math about this, but increasing curation rewards purely ruins stake distribution, and bad stake distribution is one of Steem's biggest problems.
If whales vote on orcas, and orcas vote on dolphins, and dolphins vote on minnows, and minnows vote on redfish, under 50/50 the redfish end up with 68.5% less stake after five years under 50/50 than they do under 75/25.
That's the opposite direction of a healthy system.
Are you assuming that there would be no new investment? Because that would be a terrible assumption to make with your maths.
It doesn't matter. But I know you don't value outgoing vote effectiveness and think that only returns exist, we've been through that before, so there's probably not a lot of point in continuing.
However if you'd like to collect some evidence on whether 50% curation really does drive voting, I outlined a method here.
Oh, is that right? What else can you tell me about what I value?
The issue here isn’t that it “drives voting” but that it further/better incentivizes investment/staking.
What is it that we want during growth phases? More investment and skin-in-the-game curating, or more collecting and dumping of the currencies by non-invested users looking for quick paydays?
And in the long-term, do we want a larger crowd of content consumers curating content and growing their investment? Or should we prefer a smaller crowd of content creators who publish uninteresting posts and never network?
We already have a lot of dissatisfied users in the latter group. It’s obvious to me why they have trouble making money - and it’s not because the economics don’t favor creators. I’d prefer growing the former group, which would eventually benefit creators even more, regardless of the general low quality of content that’s produced here.
Convince everyone who agrees with you to offer 50% curation on their posts through beneficiaries, then. It's that easy.
blockchain attacks/bloat is not really a problem on STEEM. the RC system makes sure of that. If people want out they should be able to get out. If people want in, they should be able to get in.
I don't think that's true of powering up. Powerups generate RCs, so as long as you have enough Steem to power down you could do it continuously. Although as TCD points out above the post payout period limits the minimum time.
While blockchain attacks haven't been much of an actual threat I can see why the devs are concerned with preventing them.
I don't have a strong opinion on this one. At first glance I am not opposed, it would be interesting to hear discussion about it.
Sorry I wrote a wrong response I thought I was at another article. :-)
Sounds good to me!
I'm a fan of the idea for allowing accelerated powerdowns for a percentage being burned or something along the lines.
It would be a way to allow folks to powerdown quickly and then they would be able to power up other accounts.. I mean delegating does this in a sense.. but not in the exact way this would.
I like this idea! A standard long length power down (like the 7day) it no cost. And a sliding scale of burnt token cost for faster power down. So many other systems have something similar for express postage or accelerated document processing...
No, cut out this damn burn token thinking. Ye have been burning STEEM and SBD since day 1, it has not worked, nor will it ever work. Just cut out that idea. Give it to someone who stress with hyper inflation. I cannot even get my bids filled anymore.
Ah, I had meant it as a price for accelerated power down. I didn't think of it as being linked to the ongoing effort to burn Steem/SBD to raise price!
This is a fair proposition and it is worth checking for a lot of reasons.
It will show the build trust between us and willingness to move forward.
Keep on postin’
Posted using Partiko iOS
To listen to the audio version of this article click on the play image.
Brought to you by @tts. If you find it useful please consider upvoting this reply.