Regardless, it needs to be faster with a speed up option.

Unfortunately, I highly doubt the burning mech will come.

Sure, I agree. The problem here is that there are plenty of solutions always in the works and always discussed here, there and nowhere. 

4 weeks is simple, clean and a first step. Once we make that first step we can start tweaking it further. 
If we become stuck in discussion of 10% instant powerdowns with a burn, or a token redistribution, or a 2 week with 15% or a 5 week with 50%, or whatever, nothing will be done and we will be stuck in a perpetual discussion with no one taking a leap and actually doing something. 

Lets do this and talk about everything else afterwards. 

Then vote against. There are two proposals. 

It's easy to look for the scapegoats and try to fix what is not broken when all the market goes up and your pick is sort of stagnating. 13 weeks with 10-14% APR is a good offer, and long stacking period is a big asset of this blockchain, it provides stability and shows engagement of users. 

What is a real problem is the fact we are cimpeting in the fairy centralized environment. All the chains run by companies are taking advantage of old fashioned inside cooperation, we still need to figure out. 

Selling on our values, instead of figuring new ways of cooperating in the fully decentralized environmwnt is a big mistake and will lead to the end of this place.

It's funny to see weak hands in the bull market.

Which temporary market sentiment? Browse the chain a bit. This has been talked about since launch. 

Making extravagant statements on radical moves does not constitute anything that resembles a coherent argument. 

Short term speculators provide a lot of value to long term investors. 
Long term investors accumulate, short term speculators provide us a payout. Liquidity, etc. 

Shorter powerup time benefits literally everyone. If it was possible to push this down lower or offer a dynamic powerup time id be all for it. 4 weeks is just a first step. Otherwise we stand in place and talk about options endlessly. 

> "who are we the most interested in owning and having the benefits of Hive tokens."

Stakeholders. Stakeholders of all shapes and sizes who have all criticized the long lockup period at one time or another.

> "They need 30 days to be a part in governance. But a powerdown which is shorter than the actual time it takes to have governance impact?"

The 30-day delay on governance voting was meant as a protection against instant massive power-ups that could put network security at risk via centralized control. It really had nothing to do with economics. 

There's no reason to assume that a shorter unstaking period should or would have any impact on the governance/security side. PoS chains with better staking incentives and shorter unstaking times isn't some novel concept. Plenty of them exist, like Cosmos, Tezos, Near, Waves, Lisk, THORchain...even EOS and Cardano. I think the *longest* lockup for any of those is only a few weeks.

Long unstaking time is one of the most complained about aspects of the tokenomics of this chain and it's one of the least addressed. It was changed in December of 2016 and hasn't been revisited. It's long overdue. (As are several other changes that we need.)

>Do the speculative shiba-inu safemoon buying pump and dump owners provide us with more benefit than long term harm?

Short term speculators provide MASSIVE long term value for us. It is speculators speculating on exchanges that the Hive price in most part depends on. I mean ask @smooth how much value short term speculators provided to the DHF by doubling the daily budget. 
<b>Long term investors accumulate. Short term speculators provide us a payout.</b>

>Will these types ever truly be fully happy with anything other than immediate or less than a week staking?

I dont care honestly. The question is if us, the long term investors will be happy with it.

>A large quantity of owners diversifying the ownership of the hive tokens provides the benefit of decentralization... which should lead to 1. decentralized price impact but also 2. decentralized governance.

Yeah, i can agree with that. 

>They need 30 days to be a part in governance. But a powerdown which is shorter than the actual time it takes to have governance impact?

Lets make it a day longer. 


>Also I'm wondering who you're trying to throw under the bus when you say: "current disorganization of the Hive "core team"."

No one. There actually is no formalized core team which is a problem. There is a dissipation of responsibility which is why there actually isnt anyone you can throw under the bus. 
The truth is that you NEED to be able to throw someone under the bus for a organization to function efficiently. 
Does Peakd have someone to throw under the bus? Splinterlands? Ofc they do. Because it has a organizational structure where you know whos supposed to do what. Hive, the base chain doesnt have that right now. 

Boom! Another very VALID POINT where these things need to be talked about first before jumping in.
So far it seems 4 weeks and 10% burn for early power down seems to be a very reasonable change. Most likely a little more complicated of a change that might not make it into this HF and have to wait till the next which I'm fine with.

We've already discussed a few different ways to circumvent this "fear" in MatterMost.

There's the burn idea. Then, there's the decline voting rights in exchange for higher staking %.

You want to give people incentives to hold HP in their own accounts. This can be better staking ROI/interest rates (no, not this voting/curating garbage which always lead to abuse and disagreements on L1). If not, more and more will end up on exchanges.

What went wrong? EOS is miles ahead of Hive in terms of market cap and price with everything you fear the most. And people seem to love BSC. 

At the end of the day, what matters is profitbility without interpersonal conflict, not your anarchist/idealist dream.

> Exchanges participate in Governance and even create their own Block Producers (Witnesses)

Hate to break this to you, but Hive is already dominated by an exchange.  A pretty non-significant one at that.

No, 4 weeks, vs 13 weeks would make very little difference when it comes to exchanges powering up while governance participation is set at 30 days.

They would want to be blockproducers. Meaning that it makes absolutely no difference if the powerdown time is 4 weeks. You would still need to block their governance participation via consensus once they power up. 

We all saw that 13 weeks of powerdown meant very little when Binance and Huobi powered up. Even now they could potentially power up and spam vote themselves with the customer funds, leech the reward pool. 
<h3>Right now youre trusting them not to.</h3>
 
The situation that would come with 4 weeks powerdown changes very little and people keeping their funds on exchanges is a choice theyre making with potential governance connotations. 

Making a claim that 4 weeks is somehow more dangerous than 13 weeks is an absolutely absurd statement. It literally changes nothing when it comes to the faults of DPOS. 
The only argument the against crowd is actually wanting to make, but is scared to: 
>But people will sell if not 13 weeks. 

Thats the ground you guys are standing on because everything else is nonsense.  

This changed my mind. I was for a shorter powerdown until I read this comment.

This changed my mind. I was for a shorter powerdown until I read this comment.

That's even better!

5 days is perfect, if someone wants to power down, they will do it anyway.

>I'd be more in favor of a 1-2 week power down time.

I would as well. My concern is that the distance between 13 weeks and 1-2 weeks is so much larger then with 4 weeks that people will generally be turned off by that idea due to the gravity of change. 
4 weeks being already imbedded mostly in the mind of the community and a natural first step. Hopefully if a change is implemented it could be improved on by the devs with the ideas Theycallmedan and others have presented.


>Security against hacks

I was never really convinced by this argument. If we deem the chain safe then the danger comes mostly from phishing attempts. If Hive, in comparison to other blockchains is deemed "safe" regardless of the powerdown time (and lets not forget our multiple passwords), why do we think reducing the powerdown time would adversely affect safety comparatively to other chains?
The only aspect in favor of the safety argument being the daily usage of your account. But that then as well falls on personal responsibility.

Convincing the community to vote for 4 instead of 1 week seems much easier at this time. Seeing how it goes, with the 4 week reduction being a reality, going further down would be a much realistic discussion.