Around 2 days ago a post from the official Steemit.com blog account @steemitblog set fourth some proposals they would perhaps be implemented in the upcoming STEEM 0.17.0 hardfork
You can click the image above to check out the proposed changes that have been put forward by Steemit Inc and read it for yourself. But for those of you whom don't have the time or want to read that post (you probably should) I'll break it down a bit in the section written below.
Note that these changes are NOT concrete nor are they 100% confirmed. As I get more information I will share it here with my readers and followers to keep everyone up to date.
Overview of the Proposed Changes of 0.17.0
The goal moving forward that I seemed to pick up in the tone of this article is the developers of STEEM and Steemit.com want to prevent the network from getting overly complicated. Plenty of ideas have been proposed by users of various difficulties of implementation and with Steemit coming forward with the future goal of simplicity may be welcomed by some.
I've taken the proposal header names and copied them from the @steemitblog proposal and condensed them below, hopefully saving people time and making the info easier to digest.
Encapsulation / Isolation of Key Consensus Components
The proposal with this given point was a welcomed site to me. The way the consensus of blocks is achieved has proposed upgrades in order to "future proof" the STEEM network and make it easier for high performance parallel network versions to be implemented in the future as the network sees a demand to further optimize.
Separation of Blockchain Logic from Interface Requirements
The STEEM blockchain in the past has had code implemented strictly for new features / GUI features for the site Steemit.com. The idea that Steemit Inc brings forward in this proposal is to split the GUI bits from the blockchain itself to allow other platforms to use the STEEM technology.
Removal of 4 Active Posts Limit
The title says it all. Steemit Inc is looking to get rid of the 4 per a day posting rule which currently exists. As it sits if you make more than 4 posts a day the subsequent posts after would receive diminishing returns on potential payouts.
Switch to Single Payout Periods
Right now on STEEM posts are given a few different payout periods in order to maximize potential payouts for the authors. However, it's been observed that majority of votes are cast in the first 24 hours after posting and the need for a 30 day payout on post is far less than previously expected.
Change to Comment Payout Structure
Comments are generally paid out now on the end of the first 24 hour payout period and then on the 30 day mark. The new proposal wants comments to be paid out 7 days after they are made which should in turn make comments more likely to be continued in my opinion!
Removal of the Comment Nesting Limits
Currently we're limited by how many comments deep you can reply to any particular comment. While for the Steemit.com GUI this works great by removing the hard coded nesting limit for comments and allowing unlimited replies nested under comments other STEEM platforms may be able to better display comments /replies in the near future.
Allow Past Posts to be Edited
When making a comment currently on Steemit you only have a certain window to edit your post or comment until you are no longer able to. The new proposal by Steemit Inc would allow users to edit their comments at any time after being committed to the blockchain.
Normalize Payout Rates
Currently every weighty vote on the network effects the payout of all other posts that are eligible for reward. The proposal if passed would ensure that all posts paid out at the same time will get an equivalent amount of STEEM per vote.
Removing Proof of Work STEEM Mining
Being a DPOS (Delegated Proof of Stake) network all mining on STEEM via POW was an addition to allow miners to use their machines to acquire STEEM tokens. However given the design of out network and given the act that the POW aspect of STEEM serves no actual security purpose a proposal to remove it completely has been put forward.
Scrapping Bandwidth Rate Limiting from Consensus
Removing rate limiting by bandwidth from the network and allowing witnesses to implement "soft" consensus on the matter will simplify the consensus algorithm. This opens up opportunity for new systems of consensus to be developed and implemented.
NEW FEATURES
Allowing Multiple Beneficiaries of Post Payouts
Now instead of just the poster receiving payout for their post the options will exist for the platform or other people such as voters, author, referrers, hosting providers and developers to also receive a potion of the payouts.
Separation of Comments Reward Pool
Currently all reward payouts come from the same source on the STEEM network. A proposal to split the comments reward pool from the posts reward pool has been made which should in theory help with payouts of both types of content.
Separate Market & Reworking of Interest Payments
STEEM pays out interest on SBD but the current system isn't set up as well as it could be in order to facilitate this. With the proposed changes put fourth for the blockchain we'll see users earning their interest and claiming it when they want rather than having it automatically credited as it is now.
What I Propose for STEEM 0.17.0
While many users struggle to find reasons to power up STEEM after talking to a number of people one thing stood out to me. Users do not want to power up because of fear of losing out on market price rises on the STEEM token. While the change from 2 years to 13 weeks to fully power down all STEEM Power introduced in version 0.16.0 is a massive step in the right direction I believe we can take that even further by offering instant powerdowns at the expense of burning a percentage of the STEEM being powered down.
With a percentage of STEEM being taken as a fee for those wishing to leave the platform and power down burned or sent to the @null account not only would it help those unwilling to wait the 13 weeks to get their STEEM earned through posting out but would also increase the value of every else's STEEM as the amount of tokens in circulation would be reduced.
Would the community back an idea like this to allow instant power downs of accounts for a % of the STEEM burned? Or would a better idea be to distribute the % to all users based on their stake on the network? The second question / thought would kill 2 birds with 1 stone so to speak. Allow users to leave the platform and take their pay while making incentive to power up to collect the rewards given by the network to STEEM holders for others instantly powering down.
Final Thoughts
There is a ton to digest here for sure. These are only brief summaries of how I interpreted the proposals and if I've presented wrong information here please comment below and inform me of my error. Looks like Steemit Inc has been busy at the drawing board and it's nice to see some proposals headed in the right direction! This is a fair amount of change in my opinion for one hardfork but as a witness and someone who is developing / operates multiple STEEM services I do prefer we have larger, less frequent hardforks than having to update all of my servers weekly with small forks.
The need to further incentivize powering up still needs to be addressed, as it sits very few are justifying doing so out of fear of potentially losing their chance at profits on STEEM price upswings. Hopefully we see some address to this in the upcoming roadmap.
TL;DR - STEEM may be getting some awesome upgrades!
Vote @klye for Witness!
A Proud STEEMbassador of CanadaThank you for your votes, the opportunity and support!
We have considered ideas like this internally. Something on the order of 25% would be necessary.
I was going to comment on this proposal to @klye , but since you're here... ;)
No comment on the rate, but I do have one on the timing: If it's to be done, it's best done now or soon. STEEM is over its bear market, and right now it's sidelining. It's been sidelining since November 3rd of last year, with two upward spikes in the interim. The flood of selling after the power-down schedule went down from 2 years to 3 months did knock the steam of out STEEM (sorry) but did not push it down so much as to resume the old bear market. It's been durn near impossible for dumpers to get it below 15,000 satoshis: buying demand around that level has been too strong.
Chart-wise, meaning demand-for-STEEM-wise, STEEM's price is sufficiently low - and STEEM is sufficiently demanded at these lows - to give its price a really solid floor. At ~14 cents or so, the new supply is met with new demand.
There's an old public-company management trick that's kinda greasy but accepted: "take-a-bath" accounting. It comes into play when the company's going through a rough spot earnings-wise. At that time, management "takes a bath" by writing down any dubious assets and incurring losses from the write-downs. The idea is, the earnings aren't going to be good anyway so announcing writedown losses isn't going to affect the stock price that much and will clean up the books for the next round of good times.
Allowing Steemers to power-down instantly with penalty at this time would have a similar effect: it wouldn't knock STEEM's price down that much because it's already been knocked down to about as low as it can go. Taking the bath now will get the supply-dump worry out of the way, and it wouldn't be that much of a shock because the market's already absorbed the extra supply from the schedule reduction.
tl;dr: The time to allow instant power-down with penalty is now, because STEEM's already been beaten down and it's been holding more-or-less steady. The end of its bear market is the appropriate time to "take a bath."
People will gladly pay for convenience and "fast service" from what I've observed as acceptable business practices. Wonderful news to hear that your brainstorming has also played with this idea.
Appreciate the reply and letting me know that this thought is already being looked at. I think 25%-33% range would be more than fair for instant power down option.
What was brought up on your end in regards to what would be done with the STEEM taken as a fee? Would burning it on @null or redistributing to SP holders be preferred?
I know while we're aiming for simplicity going forward with the development of STEEM and that this is yet another thing that would have to be proposed for implementation..The idea itself does certainly bring some more value if it managed to be done "right". :)
Cheers Dan. Have a good one sir!
Transferring to other Steem Power holders would provide incentive to stay powered up.
I believe this would be the preferred method as well.
Giving people more reason to purchase and power up STEEM can't really be a bad thing. Thanks for the reply and share of thought Dan.
Interesting ideas. I never thought about penalties to instant power down.
That is certainly an interesting idea... allow users to instantly power down with something like a 10% fee? I could get behind something like that...
I would go somewhere between 25%-33% for those just looking to exit and take the cash..!
I haven't really run the numbers on what effect this may have as it's impossible to predict what accounts would take this option if it was implemented but it certainly would help those wishing to leave exit faster as well as help the STEEM holders as a whole.
10% fee would also make dumping more expensive and thus less likely to happen.
It'd have to be a lot more than 10%.
The whole idea of the long power down is to stop a 'run on the banks' in the case of some shocking news.
If some idiot journalist wrote a clickbait piece exaggerating some 'vulnerability', and 10,000 whales and dolphins all anticipated a 50% price drop, what would they all do?
They would allow the non lemmings to pick up some darn cheap steem... that is what they would do ;)
Whales that fall for clickbait fud have not done their own research and will get what they deserve. :P
This post has been ranked within the top 25 most undervalued posts in the second half of Jan 13. We estimate that this post is undervalued by $14.92 as compared to a scenario in which every voter had an equal say.
See the full rankings and details in The Daily Tribune: Jan 13 - Part II. You can also read about some of our methodology, data analysis and technical details in our initial post.
If you are the author and would prefer not to receive these comments, simply reply "Stop" to this comment.
Distributing it to all users would be the same as burning it, no?
What kind of % are you thinking? I like the idea
Wrote a post about an idea for the comments payout pool here
https://steemit.com/steemit/@fiveboringgames/suggestion-and-discussion-for-changes-to-the-comment-system-in-0-17-asksteemit-where-answers-are-rewarded
Well, It's not exactly the same per say. By burning the instant power down fee we'd perhaps see deflation and the total number of STEEM decrease. With redistibution you'd create more incentive for people to power up and hold STEEM so I'd lean more towards redistribution.. However both have their pros and cons the more I think about it.
I like the idea of burning a percentag, as long as it is not too cheap, i.e. 10+
Perhaps a hybrid between both burning and distributing could be found that pleases everyone?
The idea is still somewhat undeveloped as to how exactly I'd implement it myself. Need to get some form of consensus or acceptance in regards to what the community would like before we go and implement something so game changing as this.
I believe any power down, should somehow be penalized for the duration of the power down.
Now for the instant power down, users should be penalized around 35%, seems fair.
Users that are holding for 30 days or longer should get the distributed funds, from people who are powering down.
I like the idea of a fee for a fast service. Many people are in principle happy to pay fees for speed!