I'm against this. The thing I dislike about it most is that it enables more funds to be lost from a one week powerdown by a hacker. It would be one thing if this was just a theoretical concern, but we know this happens quite often due to the many phishing attacks combined with all the new, inexperienced users joining Steem for the first time.
I agree with aggroed as far as the investment issue goes: if someone just wants to speculate in the coin, they can just avoid powering up (and indeed many such investors probably just keep their Steem on an exchange anyways, so that they can sell it at a moment's notice).
I don't think the current powerdown time is a big commitment for someone who wants to actively participate in the voting system and the mechanism creates some "solidity" to voter identity (someone can't just move around some poweredup funds quickly and vote "anonymously").
If it was 13 weeks before any funds could be obtained, I would probably feel differently on this issue. But with access to 1/13 after one week, I think the current system is sufficient.
In summary, I don't see any likely value-add from this change, and I think Steem holders who get hacked will lose more money as a result of this change.
I'm with @blocktrades on this one, 13 weeks is just right <3 if you don't like it ... don't power up :D really easy ;)
Yeah, that's what I don't get. If you're going to speculate, and you don't want to keep funds on an exchange, it's perfectly natural to want to transfer the liquid funds to a wallet. But it's not very likely for them to power up. I don't think the power-down schedule crosses a speculator's mind in any way.
If there's any barrier to speculation, it's the lack of wallet addresses, not the power-down schedule. Adding these wallet-only accounts would probably be less trivial to shoehorn into the next hardfork, though.
100% True!
Yeah really the only reason the 4-week proposal was even seriously considered is for the upcoming fork it being a simple parameter change. That doesn't make a good idea necessarily, but it does make it feasible.
There are other ways to earn on Steem than speculating, dlease.io for example. As someone who isn't any good at trading, makes more sense for me to power up and take advantage of this investment option at circa 14% pa returns (higher previously), as an investor doesn't make sense to power up more and lock up for long periods, especially if one can lose out on STEEM hitting an ATH again and you miss that because your funds are all locked up.
Does the possibility 14% ROI directly rely on the fact that people who lease need to curate in order for them to ROI?
Or they need to do something else that relies on some kind of inflation mechanism?
Not that there's anything wrong with that, but if there was no inflation mechanism in play, there wouldn't be a possibility of 14%, right?
How about 130 weeks instead of 13? 1300?
This is a major non-concern that relies on making the case that people are dumb and cant manage their funds so their Steem must be locked for longer.
Thats painfully stupid and shortsighted. You want your community to participate more in trading. Those that believe most in STEEM are the ones that will create upward pressure on the price since they are more likely to buy in. Having only speculators, which we do now, that only simply follow BTC price movement is what is screwing us.
Fear-mongering over a very unlikely occurrence makes for a very poor argument.
Ok, you make several arguments, so let's start at the beginning (hopefully I address most of them):
No, I'm making the case that most people won't do this, either from inexperience, laziness, or the mistaken belief that it seems you share that this form of hacking doesn't happen often in Steem. I think it's easy to make this case from observed data alone.
As support for the above argument, you also point out "There are hundreds of tokens with no staking". This is quite true, but most often these coins don't share an important characteristic of Steem: in Steem, users often use their keys in many web-based dapps. This is because Steem is truly more of a utility/dapp token than most coins, which are generally more for financial transfers. This is really a cool feature of Steem, but it also means Steem users are more exposed to phishing attacks than many other coins.
I'm not arguing for having more speculators, I'm only arguing that it is feasible to speculate on Steem without powering up SP (and hence keeping liquidity of purchased Steem). Now while it doesn't sound like you want speculators, some do, and complained on this point, so I was addressing how speculation was still possible.
In this case, I think you're making a poor argument by labeling this "fear-mongering" as some kind of perjorative. This is a real thing, that happens quite often in Steem. Maybe I see it more because people complain to us when their funds are stolen. But it's not that hard to find many people who have posted about losing funds from their accounts due to these phishing attacks.
After reading @blocktrades, I’ve changed my mind and see his point(s).
We are, here, presumably for the long run (it’s been over two years, for me).
Hoping our many investments in this platform, including our valuable time & money, continue to be rewarding.🙏🏼
i agree, think in a lot of people who will loses their account, i remember the legendary @surfermarly who was hacked, well this 13 weeks protect our investment fron a direct atack i am not agree with the changued from 13 to 4 weeks.
Stolen account recovery change to 4 weeks same as powering down time that could be a solution !?
No, because this rule would change "how quickly" funds are lost. Currently, if a user doesn't notice his account has been hacked until the first powerdown hits (1 week), he loses 1/13 of this SP. Under this new rule, he would lose 1/4 in one week. Similarly, in two weeks, he would lose 1/2 of his SP under the new rule, versus 2/13ths under the current rule.
I got your point but for somehow we could improve the rule a bit to protect the sp on each week of powering down such as moving straight to the saving box or freeze it for 2-3 weeks or we could get a notification from phone/mail when some1 starts powering down and also moving it out of the saving box. There are many better ways than mine to get this done with the 4 weeks power down. The thing that if you still want to go against it, you never want to think about any new rules to help it out.
No, I do think about such new rules, and if we come up with a set of rules that solves this problem, I'd be fine with a change to the powerdown time.
But this post by the Steemit devs isn't proposing to make a bunch of such changes, it's proposing that we make one isolated change and it's asking for our feedback on that single change. I'm expressing my opposition to this single change without adequate other changes to compensate for its effect on funds security.
Designing a set of rule changes that fixes the potential security problem and implementing that set would take longer than what is being proposed for the hardfork. But I think this post is a fine place to discuss such ideas, and I don't intend my comments to in any way stifle such a discussion.
I got ya ! I just missed the purpose of this post !
You completely ignore market dynamics.
Not allowing investors to panic sell at the bottom is the single worst thing for the price of steem. It's the reason we perform worse than other coins in bear markets (Yes, a bigger reason than inflation).
I have repeated this argument way too many times without it being read to be bothered to explain it again.
Edit - here's the link to a better explanation: https://steemit.com/hive-100421/@marki99/marki99-re-theycallmedan-zfjdulsk-20200118t114054566z
I don't completely ignore market dynamics nor do I need to read your post to understand your idea.
Seriously, it's kind of silly to think that such ideas haven't been thought about by many people who have been in this coin for many years and hold large stakes in it. But it should also be pointed out that such ideas are just opinions about human behavior and don't form any kind of really solid science.
So if everyone knows how on earth are we not acting on it?
Yes, it’s not science but no argument in the powerdown discussion is scientific. It’s all based on predictions, investor behavior, security concerns of people.
As you are one of the biggest stakeholders on the platform, I hope you will come to the conclusion that the priority is the price of steem, and that it can be helped a lot by allowing instant powerdowns.
Judging from the rest of your SPS votes we agree on pretty much everything else.