You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: The Calm Inflation Proposal & The Additional Advertisement Proposal
I think 6 weeks is a bit fast for security reasons. My original idea was 4 weeks but after discussing with @arhag I think 12 weeks is better. My view has always been that the lock-up period should be determined functionally (to satisfy the security requirements) and not to try to push people into an investment horizon they don't want. 12 weeks is probably the period that does former.
what security requirements do you refer to?
The most obvious is powering down, transferring the coins, and then powering up to a different account to vote on the same content multiple times. That is mitigated with a power down schedule longer than active post lifetimes.
I think that the new feature where they extended active post lifetimes to 30 days is not used by many people and is pretty useless. If you look at rewards past the first payout period there is almost always nothing or very little amount. People forget about old posts. Also I think this features would actually encourage cheaters to vote for themselves because they can do so without getting the attention from the post being trending or visible to many people.
If this is the only requirement then in my opinion it would be worth removing this feature or reducing the life time of the post to shorten the power down period. The shorter the time lock period the more likely people will lock their coins and participate in curating.
I really don't see the point of a long lock time period if the inflation is reduced to a minimum
Actually the 30 day limit is itself very unpopular with authors. Most would want it longer. Perhaps if the advertising revenue model is successful authors will see that as a fair way to be compensated longer term in place of reader rewards, but that is all hypothetical at this point.
The 30 day limit is bad. Harms the platform overall.
Please read my comment to this post regarding other 'issue' with 12 week to power down.