I agree that there should be empirical evidence before implementing a change like this. Also, it's configurable in steem-engine tokens and (soon) in SMTs, which means different solutions can be tried and compared. Finally, setting @likwid as a beneficiary makes it effectively, 0 days anyway (minus a small fee). I can't imagine why this would be a priority for anyone.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Actually, it can't be configured in SMTs...but aside from that the main point is the lack of evidence that reducing the powerdown period will increase investment. I guess we can make the argument that making the change will increase the pool of potential investors. But without an increase in the value of the network that potential will not materialize.
Another counter argument for the proposal is that having a large portion of the supply locked-up gives day traders some insurance against large dumps on the market and that helps wih liquidity but I did not consider that as important overall.
Oh, I assumed that was included in the configurable parameters. I think there's a strong argument to be made for making that configurable in future updates.