HF Proposal: Vote to Reduce Power Down Period to 4 Weeks by thecryptodrive

witnesses

HF Proposal: Vote to Reduce Power Down Period to 4 Weeks by thecryptodrive

View this thread on: hive.blog | peakd.com | ecency.com

steemdao · @thecryptodrive · Jan 24 '20 (edited)

$43.37

HF Proposal: Vote to Reduce Power Down Period to 4 Weeks

<center>
![image.png](https://files.steempeak.com/file/steempeak/thecryptodrive/46TkbkOV-image.png)
</center>

<center>
_pixabay.com image_
</center>

Please note there are now two proposals issued to enable the community to either vote IN FAVOUR or AGAINST the idea of a 4 week Power Down period reduction.

## Vote this proposal if you are "IN FAVOUR" of reducing the Power Down period to 4 weeks.

### Voting platforms:
https://steemitwallet.com/proposals
https://steempeak.com/proposals
https://steemproposals.com/proposal/53


## If you are "AGAINST" the 4 week Power Down change then visit the [COUNTER PROPOSAL](https://steemit.com/steemdao/@thecryptodrive/hf-proposal-vote-against-reducing-power-down-period-to-4-weeks)

<hr>

### Be sure to read discussions on both proposal posts in order to make an informed decision and feel free to contribute towards the discussion.

### Check the latest [Steemitblog post](https://steemit.com/steem/@steemitblog/feedback-wanted-4-week-power-down) for additional discussion. 

<hr>

### Excerpt from Original proposal

This is a consensus proposal to allow witnesses and stakeholders to vote on this change being implemented in the next HF, thereby recording their approval on-chain.

The proposed change is to reduce the current 13-week power down schedule to 4 weeks. The reason for selecting 4 weeks was to still provide some lockup protection within the 30-day account recovery period. 

There was talk about having different power down schedules for earned vs invested SP but that would be a much more complex code change and additional cognitive load for the user, therefore this proposal is simply for a reduction to 4 weeks and nothing else.

The changes will likely involve code to first halt all current power downs in progress and change the parameter from 13 to 4 weeks.

The premise behind this change is to reduce the barrier to entry for investment into Steem and PoB SMT's, currently it is daunting for investors to lock-up their capital for 13 weeks. While 4 weeks is still high compared to other chains like EOS, it is a positive incremental iteration in the right direction, with low risk of market sell-off. It can be further reduced in a future hardfork if proven to not have adverse market effects.

**Implementation:** This is likely a small code change that can be done by Steemit Inc., community developers are of course entitled to submit PR's to the public repo for these changes or submit a proposal to be remunerated for the same.   

There was also a discussion about adding an instant power down by burning 5-10% of the stake, that may be more expensive to code and perhaps should not be considered for this HF, but if still desired should be voted on via a separate proposal. (_EDIT: This has been found to be very dangerous, a hacked account could be instantly drained via this burn mechanism and therefor circumvents any lockup period safety benefits._)

## Please can all top 20 witnesses who support this change kindly vote FOR or AGAINST. Backup witnesses, active stakeholders and community members are invited to vote as well.

<hr>

### Proposal Recipient Disclaimer: The proposal recipient will be @steem.dao, funds will be returned to the SPS pool, the purpose of the proposal is to achieve voting consensus either IN FAVOUR or AGAINST the 4 week powerdown change. 

### Beneficiary Disclaimer: This is a 100% 🔥Burnpost🔥!

👍 steemhunt, ocdb, happybelly, v4vapid, acidyo, superhardness, michealb, transisto, daan, jphamer1, suonghuynh, likwid, kus-knee, someguy123, geoffrey, spectrumecons, bue, diggndeeper.com, goldmatters, brent1042, supergiant, foruni73, jrcornel, newhope, adsup, thecryptodrive, joeypark, smooth, timcliff, ew-and-patterns, vortac, magicmonk, joeparys, judasp, pennsif, steem-ambassador, smasssh, project.hope, smartsteem, wf9877, project7, buildawhale, forexbrokr, steem-ua, menerva, untersatz, lordbutterfly, ikrahch, eversloth, vikisecrets, starkerz, guiltyparties, roguewriter, thevote, tombstone, whatsup, brianoflondon, therealwolf, jingdol, reggaemuffin, gungunkrishu, geekgirl, mvd, elmetro, and 419 others
👎 emrebeyler, chrisrice, coinchaos, quantumdeveloper, benitrade, tridimstroc, steem-ph, emmanuel.singer, tomkos

properties (23)vote details (492)

voter	rshares	pct
smooth	1,100,225,863,292	5%
tombstone	281,278,301,149	0%
liondani	0	100%
bue	2,195,247,609,936	100%
drifter1	282,021,592	2%
cheolwoo-kim	0	100%
acidyo	9,523,501,431,683	100%
kenny-crane	122,448,124,974	25%
thecryptodrive	1,265,989,921,834	100%
kus-knee	3,114,632,506,137	100%
mangou007	9,707,076,410	6.64%
geoffrey	2,733,849,729,668	100%
daan	5,211,612,722,114	100%
stranger27	4,188,727,665	100%
field	19,643,973,375	100%
vortac	1,007,110,949,140	20%
diana.catherine	243,696,495	2%
transisto	6,837,225,109,461	100%
arcange	49,496,794,632	3%
raphaelle	1,233,355,771	3%
ace108	104,048,630,075	4%
alex2016	160,900,621	100%
sulev	270,188,730	2%
magicmonk	953,434,478,593	100%
timcliff	1,055,164,391,504	91%
ssm1810	0	100%
jphamer1	4,163,576,582,989	100%
jrcornel	1,650,262,562,064	25%
kiddarko	12,715,340,782	10%
bert0	24,762,388,666	6.64%
sc-steemit	13,698,377,366	15%
nelkel	1,265,586,560	75%
someguy123	2,956,006,874,433	100%
shadowspub	564,327,050	0.5%
etcmike	0	100%
carrinm	15,936,256,007	2%
dadview	2,595,047,127	6%
seckorama	1,014,159,178	1.5%
dexter-k	1,912,315,148	1%
whatsup	267,461,579,980	27%
disregardfiat	40,689,079,772	40%
rynow	98,056,834,417	25%
jang	173,463,531,594	100%
ansharphoto	2,362,988,586	2%
goldmatters	2,003,929,539,177	100%
barton26	19,765,521,312	100%
dgiors	113,159,417,950	50%
elumni	6,110,177,866	100%
steemsportsfund	26,330,682,632	26%
roguewriter	313,398,709,079	100%
mokluc	516,803,160	25%
missk	949,330,178	100%
judasp	881,013,677,035	100%
jamzed	0	100%
adventureevryday	89,931,249,363	20%
batanamatampuhin	578,828,885	50%
trieuvinhkim	0	100%
dreemsteem	1,069,472,866	18%
v4vapid	16,075,651,064,376	100%
newhope	1,599,899,186,208	18%
driptorchpress	13,242,826,466	60%
panosgr36	7,767,886,641	100%
javirid	14,394,885,029	100%
steemitboard	16,250,468,263	1%
steemfeed	11,451,792,516	50%
buzzbeergeek	533,396,131	20%
nikolina	4,395,770,039	9%
ackza	41,262,418,022	100%
dyrt88	1,128,032,006	100%
elviento	8,917,522,164	8.09%
elmetro	204,467,693,179	100%
diggndeeper.com	2,131,357,546,594	100%
honeybeee	532,186,676	94%
businesswri	65,134,895,822	100%
azzurra92	299,176,020	2%
eirik	16,005,197,120	100%
preparedwombat	59,753,246,289	23%
anarcotech	11,486,029,386	15%
starkerz	349,162,798,455	15%
freebornsociety	12,964,173,811	10%
kiwibro	578,065,923	100%
elevator09	3,906,640,781	1.8%
detlev	7,026,767,831	1.5%
densteem	0	100%
miniature-tiger	112,281,782,371	50%
daudimitch	13,625,079,124	100%
steemitcitizen	811,998,384	10%
mattuk	1,264,776,870	2%
sarasate	2,080,518,054	2%
msg768	2,497,290,403	5%
tyzzzz	432,772,741	2%
sepracore	148,702,249,718	100%
smasssh	697,536,916,639	30%
underground	668,157,376	0.54%
spoylerbg	730,987,559	2%
robi	805,935,824	2%
mvd	237,366,824,748	99.7%
martie7	18,066,311,237	100%
ribalinux	776,703,420	2%
enginewitty	6,704,113,473	20%
stackin	45,963,607,817	4%
roomservice	969,677,129	2%
jenga	11,757,809	10%
tj4real	14,971,594,533	50%
reggaemuffin	254,984,501,972	10%
sustainablyyours	21,660,317	0.1%
tytran	126,726,570,791	100%
guiltyparties	327,407,821,791	100%
stevelivingston	107,887,471,034	51%
masterthematrix	162,165,872,823	100%
drwom	482,520,453	40%
arrliinn	1,626,773,675	9%
mdosev	2,453,206,018	10%
robofox	6,352,493,649	100%
carlosd15	187,647,496	100%
brent1042	1,823,447,963,654	100%
bree1042	35,027,073,570	20%
wf9877	617,573,262,816	100%
pennsif	843,712,944,156	100%
jackmiller	4,753,688,807	4.5%
jingdol	258,090,899,718	100%
beoped	60,694,911,741	33%
spectrumecons	2,201,243,040,880	50%
mamadini	2,741,080,042	25%
ew-and-patterns	1,027,296,234,374	25%
progressivechef	4,167,395,553	4.5%
changeangels	29,421,869	100%
princessmewmew	19,069,883,547	9%
zneeke	202,513,073	2%
hardikv	3,100,679,725	9%
gunthertopp	33,208,404,362	1.5%
furious-one	33,524,764,576	100%
forexbrokr	470,066,221,970	100%
geekgirl	246,549,246,725	100%
binkyprod	0	50%
ccoin	5,303,684,959	2%
edthecanadian	1,347,885,128	7.74%
bentleycapital	0	100%
uanix	3,155,654,665	100%
jesus.christ	445,887,480	5%
msp-lovebot	49,208,713,177	10%
fiftysixnorth	870,769,139	5.4%
phelimint	2,045,502,565	1.8%
steembusiness	4,598,630,518	25%
upgoat	3,402,327,138	100%
resheep	434,068,509	100%
buildteam	117,121,441,357	99%
upbloke	11,689,726,987	99%
upcroak	206,436,595	100%
davedickeyyall	9,077,493,844	1%
superhardness	8,909,508,256,487	100%
vikisecrets	350,278,824,255	30%
johnnywingston	327,681,616	50%
moeknows	4,650,540,501	40%
glitterbooster	5,833,225,026	25%
leotrap	959,253,085	5%
podnikatel	54,206,146	0.2%
linksman	24,357,181,468	100%
joeparys	894,365,703,674	15%
foruni73	1,732,910,624,376	100%
lpessin	0	100%
chugoi911	453,643,683	100%
project7	474,832,817,668	100%
techblogger	2,613,187,253	50%
badham	51,871,301	50%
steemposter	197,872,804	100%
buildteampot	304,125,666	100%
dakeshi	18,077,890,121	50%
mentionator	301,641,977	100%
buildawhale	473,812,194,150	1%
rumplestiltskin	1,987,348,863	20%
vlemon	59,896,450,290	1%
kesolink	1,249,310,890	5%
kamikaze	52,701,103,747	100%
molovelly	969,757,902	9%
therealwolf	259,847,262,227	2%
f1assistance	0	100%
raycoms	32,057,135,893	50%
marceladb	0	100%
szabolcs	623,210,829	2%
cryptonewz	0	1%
dobartim	126,139,238,624	2%
dokter-purnama	1,966,588,044	10%
rakkasan84	79,621,006,782	7.2%
moneyinfant	19,064,839	0.2%
owain82220	144,970,929,792	100%
upme	2,339,697,545	2%
silvergoldbotty	53,032,680,990	18%
hannesl	1,034,302,942	2%
thealliance	101,481,914,680	18%
bait002	7,870,670,350	10%
steemitcomics	1,236,886,671	20%
stevejhuggett	7,112,513,126	15%
flamingirl	52,302,140,867	6.64%
simgirl	1,960,060,583	9%
kanchana	0	100%
snook	15,933,651,578	15%
kayceefresh	3,185,506,145	100%
imisstheoldkanye	2,933,298,513	1%
uncommonriad	15,156,870,136	100%
emrebeyler	-321,161,145,452	-100%
bobinson	0	100%
zakia	49,260,387,246	100%
sagarthukral	103,095,965	2%
smartsteem	628,605,835,152	2%
chireerocks	1,068,517,714	5%
shaotech	563,079,452	100%
travoved	58,200,433,198	18.75%
nairadaddy	2,229,999,682	5%
buildteam-help	196,821,660	100%
steemhunt	58,810,321,002,151	100%
ugurarslanboga	800,456,289	50%
byn	1,191,701,001	7.2%
ocupation	157,542,374,370	100%
sireh	15,042,091,086	50%
b00m	21,261,437,323	13.5%
fuckawhale	357,255,269	100%
lickapussy	357,255,264	100%
buildteamfund	46,833,868,742	100%
bubbleburst	9,203,708,015	100%
steemmall	357,251,449	100%
raymondbruce	1,250,240,520	40%
bebeomega	334,316,337	2%
a11y	19,566,075,281	20%
zainejj	0	2%
smooms	2,423,947,605	2%
lextenebris	0	100%
crescendoofpeace	1,312,485,710	4.5%
dmwh	54,858,426,432	100%
mopanfeng	0	100%
zipsardinia	428,071,239	2%
rimicane	8,647,582,550	30%
leynedayana	573,288,130	100%
globalone	0	100%
nelkeljdm	4,178,917,779	100%
kingsolo	875,403,522	50%
isi3	3,528,532,925	2%
jgvinstl	6,197,550,134	100%
trev03	270,865,724	100%
tomkos	0	-100%
adityajainxds	868,148,326	5%
wig319	779,775,502	2%
spiritualmax	2,327,375,111	2%
eversloth	352,416,016,119	100%
delease	0	100%
dlease	24,116,904,193	100%
bengy	1,479,550,530	1.8%
smartmarket	9,010,661,027	2%
bubbolo21	428,645,618	2%
meemee	775,049,667	5%
cygon	756,768,194	9%
patricklancaster	1,673,283,232	10%
supergiant	1,805,908,652,436	100%
coinchaos	-22,449,024,916	-100%
murdermystery	16,152,913,601	40%
jeenger	0	100%
ikrahch	353,182,182,923	100%
gandalfthewhite	396,487,473	100%
roger.remix	6,121,360,791	10%
videosteemit	161,710,981,143	100%
pandasquad	562,043,801	15%
khusairi	1,526,260,216	50%
tobias-g	159,475,721,999	33%
chronocrypto	105,307,930,710	100%
lanzjoseg	59,177,833,744	50%
mahtabansari370	125,367,503,647	15%
khimgoh	27,486,501,827	9%
steem-ambassador	775,837,413,325	100%
hazem91	1,799,744,290	2.7%
wwwfernand	93,663,396	100%
emiliomorles	45,890,560,043	100%
tuts	561,987,922	100%
katrina-ariel	11,966,415,740	20%
bernardino	0	100%
alexandersteemit	832,450,239	2%
layra	1,232,540,060	2%
futurecurrency	15,604,230,247	47%
maikuraki	122,489,710	2%
wildarms65	1,725,477,267	100%
emmanuel.singer	0	-100%
themuffinman	72,862,165	100%
cauac	572,214,134	60%
tonytrillions	13,575,690,440	60%
joeypark	1,155,883,772,865	100%
kilianparadise	1,917,143,059	50%
roundhere	10,414,095,981	50%
minecolonies	353,126,699	100%
olimiesma	80,688,894,996	100%
yohan2on	23,041,753,282	100%
herryazmi11	1,417,577,267	50%
lordjames	1,656,592,328	1%
lionsuit	25,286,029,181	100%
adoptaminnow	158,034,500	100%
hanki	0	100%
matildah	48,943,613,461	100%
thefunfactory	471,827,908	100%
smokeynagata	1,042,098,956	75%
someonefun	471,827,257	100%
funbox	471,827,252	100%
funlands	811,466,456	100%
funanime	471,827,233	100%
funkyfun	471,827,212	100%
funnyfun	471,827,212	100%
dmonia	471,827,205	100%
goldrym	471,826,509	100%
qeoddrir	471,826,495	100%
dodrorth	471,826,486	100%
iedot	354,100,138	100%
thevote	308,799,809,266	9.9%
sekhet	598,055,566	100%
ajanphoto	403,463,805	2%
paragism	29,329,369,733	100%
wales	48,114,349,255	14%
philippekiene	610,821,574	2.7%
gadrian	128,131,497,104	50%
mumma-monza	3,419,320,542	9%
lordbutterfly	399,377,080,768	100%
ulqu3	977,550,554	9%
tresor	18,166,275,410	6.64%
joseangelvs	1,315,602,660	100%
wirednkod	439,748,376	76%
jaydih	196,383,273,251	5%
queeirisa	15,366,290,460	100%
awie	983,289,733	100%
yonilkar	5,306,918,381	100%
andreasgrubhofer	114,916,678,584	89%
sergionatera	606,800,125	100%
menerva	416,227,534,332	100%
atanas007	6,641,840,375	100%
crypto.piotr	75,459,433,530	10%
jojon	577,744,748	100%
minerthreat	5,961,232,246	2%
aro.steem	605,544,195	0.8%
steemjet	9,133,540,994	1%
mikemoi	1,440,373,443	2%
orcabooster	546,415,378	100%
therabbitzone	681,394,121	50%
justinmullet	551,941,441	2%
preciousadu	67,712,426	100%
elmundodexao	1,851,808,192	25%
steemitcanarias	891,685,145	60%
yougotavote	952,834,548	18%
suonghuynh	3,534,853,309,606	23%
raybull	1,203,638,350	50%
video24x	174,153,846	100%
shortsegments	51,154,334,032	16%
steemhunt.fund	15,130,370,393	100%
steemhunt.pay	44,983,001,991	100%
angelica7	13,174,074,754	75%
ga5ri	545,534,286	100%
ga5ri01	545,694,965	100%
mrnightmare89	936,483	0.2%
kycverified	0	100%
ocdb	50,904,037,832,086	30%
zaibkang	22,788,813,105	100%
pagliozzo	13,938,886,412	15%
xmrking	640,148,030	2%
potential1147	555,177,700	100%
chemical3819	553,588,971	100%
calprut	7,619,409,631	50%
sonder-an	602,515,433	100%
csy	203,518,757,944	100%
lars.plays	249,330,464	100%
yormalis	585,825,231	100%
goumao	76,393,336,453	100%
jason0319	558,135,780	100%
calculus3307	558,096,480	100%
coreline15	559,439,370	100%
anytrust	559,988,753	100%
stich77	557,994,702	100%
escape83	555,206,299	100%
mystery0813	548,259,162	100%
jennifer25	556,915,167	100%
imbusy247	548,259,162	100%
master1500	559,885,695	100%
xavierg	559,984,568	100%
santoninoatocha	565,899,901	100%
ladyceleste	634,038,378	100%
witnesspage	8,128,619,672	27%
littledisciples	3,712,827,609	50%
lupafilotaxia	21,697,995,861	50%
music.mari	542,552,107	100%
connor-russo	0	100%
blockheads	295,370,986	75%
metametheus	5,472,393,135	10%
asforex	546,334,651	100%
alexnes	380,384,114	2%
chrisrice	-64,093,458,930	-100%
exhibition	6,673,916,808	100%
laissez-faire	93,379,657	100%
cultus-forex	1,360,021,510	1.2%
mister-meeseeks	709,351,212	2%
stefano.massari	0	50%
anti-bully	1,988,398,473	100%
teamcn-shop	2,893,379,440	7.9%
steemjetmedia	6,803,684,904	2%
gungunkrishu	247,531,362,294	100%
pedrohmc23	442,218,206	100%
brianoflondon	260,311,644,624	100%
megaraz	494,219,948	100%
davescustommedia	0	100%
memeteca	965,397,395	6.64%
steem-ua	424,183,294,717	9.4%
steempope	443,813,473	70%
soilder	547,870,523	100%
buntafujiwara	404,516,360	100%
take-a-break	1,836,671,136	100%
faeryboots	15,398,215,966	87%
michealb	8,029,754,984,106	100%
new-steemit	1,025,161,611	2%
adalger	0	100%
megadrive	59,455,222,595	100%
ssonagee	0	100%
yuriy4	501,292,299	12%
shea851	36,378,249,450	54.6%
steemfriends	4,274,514,193	100%
r-e-d	712,742,751	18%
swiftcash	22,960,513,505	5%
swiftbot	578,239,836	5%
steemtank	2,257,561,074	2%
nedshare	423,549,728	100%
wolfinator	456,643,371	2%
darrenfj	6,323,808,347	25%
elizabethharvey	347,532,904	2%
constant-flux	103,555,477	75%
steemdapps	1,714,685,154	2%
waleedtee	66,165,465,539	100%
simply-happy	772,523,648	1.8%
treepi	26,579,250,914	100%
dmacs	295,646,148	100%
happybelly	37,559,489,301,792	100%
kharma.scribbles	5,325,494	0.25%
natasng	421,853,067	100%
daniel-vs	0	100%
aaronkroeblinger	1,849,525,069	2%
assfaceproject	856,395,925	25%
gluer	0	100%
joseghr	467,143,483	100%
sidhar	96,375,139	10%
epicdice	8,541,933,810	0.6%
thecryptohoarder	5,467,340,244	20%
dtrade	268,635,978	10%
fillow	0	100%
likwid	3,321,844,375,280	20%
steem-ph	0	-100%
stella79	536,742,566	100%
quantumdeveloper	-4,414,710,908	-100%
anil2307	0	100%
kingsguards	4,212,875,229	100%
imbartley	712,534,468	25%
shimozurdo	4,597,784,567	100%
makingblocks	6,450,172,364	9%
afza	188,703,303	5%
ozraeliavi	6,364,027,535	25%
cn-leo	134,132,204	2%
scaredycatcurate	4,606,364,495	100%
adsup	1,415,798,760,432	35%
wongbraling	0	100%
project.hope	649,655,362,712	10%
giphy	150,996,854,372	100%
wenjiewu1	0	29%
partitura.pal	310,598,039	100%
untersatz	411,483,293,452	100%
luvlylady	36,957,487,263	100%
strumentiforex	0	100%
cinqowy	2,351,317,534	100%
nitin21	405,511,838	100%
cryptosearch	490,878,910	100%
cineq24	900,721,571	100%
serega25922	10,061,965,275	100%
tengri	192,236,405,836	24.99%
thebilpcointrain	60,382,799	1%
bilpcoin.pay	146,900,366	1%
abdoshib251	252,504,567	100%
eleez	0	100%
white-list	147,674,824	5%
tridimstroc	0	-10%
steem-net-ph	0	100%
steemlondon	2,464,068,526	6%
hmmloveaet3	176,152,263	40%
mmoriarty	0	100%
tonyapipilhuasco	803,612,199	100%
billybobtodd	420,201,671	100%
estefanobm	0	100%
nightmare-king	0	0%
spx	0	100%
packard	0	100%
shai-2	0	100%
simply2koool	0	100%
urchannel1	0	100%
benitrade	0	-100%
ste1ner	0	100%

@abitcoinskeptic · Nov 20 '19

I notice STEEM POWER hovers around 60 to 70% of stotal Steem.
This means 30~40% is liquid. That is enough in my opinion and I am not aware of any shortage. Who knows if cha ging this ratio to be lower (more sp) is good?

More people are already powering down than powering up on a daily basis recently. I don't know if this is good or bad. Changing dyanics to encourage further power ups may also encourage further power downs.

SP is used for important things like sps voting rewards and witnesses, allowing exchanges to swoop in and 'experiment' for a 4 week delay instead of a 13 week delay may be a death blow because it will allow quick and potentially devestating attacks..

Changing the powerdown from 1/4 a year to 1/13 a year seems like too much risk for too little rewards.

Moving inflation from just holding sp over to the 3 days saving bank may be a safer option. Can profit from this withoutntoo much influemce and reduction in liquidity. option.

properties (22)

`author`	abitcoinskeptic
`permlink`	re-thecryptodrive-q18s0k
`category`	steemdao
`json_metadata`	{"tags":["steemdao"],"app":"steempeak/2.1.1"}
`created`	2019-11-20 00:29:12
`last_update`	2019-11-20 00:29:12
`depth`	1
`children`	2
`last_payout`	2019-11-27 00:29:12
`cashout_time`	1969-12-31 23:59:59
`total_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`curator_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`pending_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`promoted`	0.000 HBD
`body_length`	960
`author_reputation`	335,387,091,612,941
`root_title`	"HF Proposal: Vote to Reduce Power Down Period to 4 Weeks "
`beneficiaries`	`[]`
`max_accepted_payout`	1,000,000.000 HBD
`percent_hbd`	10,000
`post_id`	92,658,944
`net_rshares`	0

@thecryptodrive · Nov 20 '19

Moving inflation to savings is certainly interesting but it would have to be to the Steem savings not SBD savings, as inflation on SBD would make the peg worse.

properties (22)

`author`	thecryptodrive
`permlink`	q1958q
`category`	steemdao
`json_metadata`	{"app":"steemit/0.1"}
`created`	2019-11-20 05:14:45
`last_update`	2019-11-20 05:14:45
`depth`	2
`children`	1
`last_payout`	2019-11-27 05:14:45
`cashout_time`	1969-12-31 23:59:59
`total_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`curator_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`pending_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`promoted`	0.000 HBD
`body_length`	160
`author_reputation`	103,594,115,164,820
`root_title`	"HF Proposal: Vote to Reduce Power Down Period to 4 Weeks "
`beneficiaries`	`[]`
`max_accepted_payout`	1,000,000.000 HBD
`percent_hbd`	10,000
`post_id`	92,663,930
`net_rshares`	0

@abitcoinskeptic · Nov 20 '19

I think tweaking the sbd bank to take steem as well would be a worthwhile option to explore. Call it Steem Power Lite if you will. 

I don't think there is a particular rush to move powerdowns to 4 weeks. We have no data to support this will help SMTs because those are a long term investment even compared to 13 weeks. So holding it until a year or so later if the prices don't increase is another option.

I just have a feeling that lowering it to 4 weeks will turn Steem more into a speculative asset. There are hundreds of other cryptocurrencies doing this already.

properties (22)

`author`	abitcoinskeptic
`permlink`	re-thecryptodrive-q19sox
`category`	steemdao
`json_metadata`	{"tags":["steemdao"],"app":"steempeak/2.1.1"}
`created`	2019-11-20 13:41:24
`last_update`	2019-11-20 13:41:24
`depth`	3
`children`	0
`last_payout`	2019-11-27 13:41:24
`cashout_time`	1969-12-31 23:59:59
`total_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`curator_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`pending_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`promoted`	0.000 HBD
`body_length`	569
`author_reputation`	335,387,091,612,941
`root_title`	"HF Proposal: Vote to Reduce Power Down Period to 4 Weeks "
`beneficiaries`	`[]`
`max_accepted_payout`	1,000,000.000 HBD
`percent_hbd`	10,000
`post_id`	92,674,017
`net_rshares`	0

@ackza · Nov 2 '19

$0.11

I just launched the Infowars Token tribe and enabled scot and staking and i chose 3 days, 1 period, just like eos, because if i have to rely on some staking period of a month of more then it cant stand on its own too legs :) bitcoin has no staking so 3 days will be fine even , for tribe tokens

steem may need at least 7 days to avoid some sort of gaming i think but yeah well see :)  Im hoping for Freemium tribe creation and or ENg proposals on @eosdac dac factory for ENG on EOS soon so we can propose good tribe sand get funding foir it

👍 thecryptodrive

`author`	ackza
`permlink`	q0byjj
`category`	steemdao
`json_metadata`	{"tags":["steemdao","steemleo"],"users":["eosdac"],"app":"steemleo/0.1","canonical_url":"https://www.steemleo.com/@ackza/q0byjj"}
`created`	2019-11-02 07:09:21
`last_update`	2019-11-02 07:09:21
`depth`	1
`children`	3
`last_payout`	2019-11-09 07:09:21
`cashout_time`	1969-12-31 23:59:59
`total_payout_value`	0.054 HBD
`curator_payout_value`	0.054 HBD
`pending_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`promoted`	0.000 HBD
`body_length`	541
`author_reputation`	288,294,304,092,017
`root_title`	"HF Proposal: Vote to Reduce Power Down Period to 4 Weeks "
`beneficiaries`	`[]`
`max_accepted_payout`	1,000,000.000 HBD
`percent_hbd`	10,000
`post_id`	92,124,343
`net_rshares`	612,795,788,645
`author_curate_reward`	""

properties (23)vote details (1)

voter	weight	wgt%	rshares	pct	time
thecryptodrive	0 B		612,795,788,645	51%

@thecryptodrive · Nov 2 '19

I think the ultimate goal would be 7 days but for now I think 4 weeks is a prudent iteration. I woukd also like to see voluntary longer lockups oncase one were to go on holiday and want the security, also not bad to have longer lockups in the face of quantum threat.

properties (22)

`author`	thecryptodrive
`permlink`	q0byxb
`category`	steemdao
`json_metadata`	{"app":"steemit/0.1"}
`created`	2019-11-02 07:17:36
`last_update`	2019-11-02 07:17:36
`depth`	2
`children`	2
`last_payout`	2019-11-09 07:17:36
`cashout_time`	1969-12-31 23:59:59
`total_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`curator_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`pending_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`promoted`	0.000 HBD
`body_length`	266
`author_reputation`	103,594,115,164,820
`root_title`	"HF Proposal: Vote to Reduce Power Down Period to 4 Weeks "
`beneficiaries`	`[]`
`max_accepted_payout`	1,000,000.000 HBD
`percent_hbd`	10,000
`post_id`	92,124,541
`net_rshares`	0

@steem-ph · Nov 18 '19

I think it would be better to introduce dynamic staking and schedule it for the next hardfork, the one after this next one.

properties (22)

@steem-ph · Nov 19 '19

If the ultimate goal is 7 days, what would then be the clear difference between Steem and Steem Power? @thecryptodrive

properties (22)

@artgirl · Jan 11 '20

$0.02

So is this proposal still good even after the edit statement related to hacking? 🤔 Is that a minor thing?

Posted using [Partiko Android](https://partiko.app/referral/artgirl)

👍 dustsweeper, thecryptodrive

`author`	artgirl
`permlink`	artgirl-re-thecryptodrive-hf-proposal-vote-to-reduce-power-down-period-to-4-weeks-20200111t062436477z
`category`	steemdao
`json_metadata`	{"app":"partiko","client":"android"}
`created`	2020-01-11 06:24:36
`last_update`	2020-01-11 06:24:36
`depth`	1
`children`	2
`last_payout`	2020-01-18 06:24:36
`cashout_time`	1969-12-31 23:59:59
`total_payout_value`	0.011 HBD
`curator_payout_value`	0.011 HBD
`pending_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`promoted`	0.000 HBD
`body_length`	175
`author_reputation`	78,999,723,192,910
`root_title`	"HF Proposal: Vote to Reduce Power Down Period to 4 Weeks "
`beneficiaries`	`[]`
`max_accepted_payout`	1,000,000.000 HBD
`percent_hbd`	10,000
`post_id`	94,284,718
`net_rshares`	146,951,160,592
`author_curate_reward`	""

properties (23)vote details (2)

voter	weight	wgt%	rshares	pct	time
thecryptodrive	0 B		55,138,191,114	11%
dustsweeper	0 B		91,812,969,478	15.46%

@thecryptodrive · Jan 11 '20

Yeah still good, the edit was related to having a feature to pay like 5% Steem burn for insta powerdown, that is dangerous. 4 weeks pd is fine

properties (22)

`author`	thecryptodrive
`permlink`	q3xlzs
`category`	steemdao
`json_metadata`	{"app":"steemit/0.1"}
`created`	2020-01-11 07:26:18
`last_update`	2020-01-11 07:26:18
`depth`	2
`children`	1
`last_payout`	2020-01-18 07:26:18
`cashout_time`	1969-12-31 23:59:59
`total_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`curator_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`pending_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`promoted`	0.000 HBD
`body_length`	142
`author_reputation`	103,594,115,164,820
`root_title`	"HF Proposal: Vote to Reduce Power Down Period to 4 Weeks "
`beneficiaries`	`[]`
`max_accepted_payout`	1,000,000.000 HBD
`percent_hbd`	10,000
`post_id`	94,286,395
`net_rshares`	0

@artgirl · Jan 11 '20

Ok. :)

properties (22)

@balte · Nov 29 '19

$0.05

You are delegating to an account @mmmmkkkk311 who is downvoting me for nothing! So I will downvote your posts of course!
Best regards!

👍 steembasicincome
👎 mmmmkkkk311, mk-sports-token, mk-photo-token, mk-pal-token

`author`	balte
`permlink`	q1pkpp
`category`	steemdao
`json_metadata`	{"users":["mmmmkkkk311"],"app":"steemit/0.1"}
`created`	2019-11-29 02:10:36
`last_update`	2019-11-29 02:10:36
`depth`	1
`children`	0
`last_payout`	2019-12-06 02:10:36
`cashout_time`	1969-12-31 23:59:59
`total_payout_value`	0.027 HBD
`curator_payout_value`	0.027 HBD
`pending_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`promoted`	0.000 HBD
`body_length`	134
`author_reputation`	117,022,455,824,495
`root_title`	"HF Proposal: Vote to Reduce Power Down Period to 4 Weeks "
`beneficiaries`	`[]`
`max_accepted_payout`	1,000,000.000 HBD
`percent_hbd`	0
`post_id`	92,922,816
`net_rshares`	326,089,536,032
`author_curate_reward`	""

properties (23)vote details (5)

voter	rshares	pct
steembasicincome	1,365,727,609,281	77.32%
mmmmkkkk311	-1,039,440,201,924	-19.33%
mk-pal-token	-26,975,536	-1.94%
mk-sports-token	-105,495,377	-1.94%
mk-photo-token	-65,400,412	-1.94%

@bashadow · Nov 2 '19

$0.10

I could not find the proposal, perhaps a bit soon for it to show up on the vote list. 

I do believe a 4 week time frame would be a grand Idea, I feel this would decrease the amount of stake held in one hand and make it a little more palatable when an investor invested and then decide it just was not for them.

👍 thecryptodrive

`author`	bashadow
`permlink`	q0c0e1
`category`	steemdao
`json_metadata`	{"app":"steemit/0.1"}
`created`	2019-11-02 07:49:06
`last_update`	2019-11-02 07:49:06
`depth`	1
`children`	2
`last_payout`	2019-11-09 07:49:06
`cashout_time`	1969-12-31 23:59:59
`total_payout_value`	0.049 HBD
`curator_payout_value`	0.048 HBD
`pending_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`promoted`	0.000 HBD
`body_length`	311
`author_reputation`	100,388,692,638,882
`root_title`	"HF Proposal: Vote to Reduce Power Down Period to 4 Weeks "
`beneficiaries`	`[]`
`max_accepted_payout`	1,000,000.000 HBD
`percent_hbd`	10,000
`post_id`	92,125,187
`net_rshares`	550,457,824,889
`author_curate_reward`	""

properties (23)vote details (1)

voter	weight	wgt%	rshares	pct	time
thecryptodrive	0 B		550,457,824,889	46%

@steem-ph · Nov 18 '19

People can invest in Steem now using liquid Steem without ever having to stake.

AND they can also rent Steem Power just to test things out if they want to see if its for them or not.

I personally think this should be more well thought out and I think @therealwolf's suggestion of dynamic staking is better than a 4 week power down.

properties (22)

@thecryptodrive · Nov 2 '19

Proposal should be right at the bottom, scroll down.

properties (22)

`author`	thecryptodrive
`permlink`	q0c0pr
`category`	steemdao
`json_metadata`	{"app":"steemit/0.1"}
`created`	2019-11-02 07:56:15
`last_update`	2019-11-02 07:56:15
`depth`	2
`children`	0
`last_payout`	2019-11-09 07:56:15
`cashout_time`	1969-12-31 23:59:59
`total_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`curator_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`pending_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`promoted`	0.000 HBD
`body_length`	52
`author_reputation`	103,594,115,164,820
`root_title`	"HF Proposal: Vote to Reduce Power Down Period to 4 Weeks "
`beneficiaries`	`[]`
`max_accepted_payout`	1,000,000.000 HBD
`percent_hbd`	10,000
`post_id`	92,125,287
`net_rshares`	0

@binkyprod · Jan 26 '20

Definitely in favour. When you Power Down, that Steem is then somewhere and nowhere and anything can happen during that time. If anything were to happen and you were to lose that Steem, the longer it's in that limbo place, the higher chances of losing that Steem. I get that it would incetivise people to keep that Steem as Steem Power, but some people need that Steem, either for purchases on the Steem blockchain, or because it's their income. Reduced power down time means increased security of actually getting that Steem as Steem at the end of that fourth week.

properties (22)

`author`	binkyprod
`permlink`	q4ozmx
`category`	steemdao
`json_metadata`	{"app":"steemit/0.1"}
`created`	2020-01-26 02:16:03
`last_update`	2020-01-26 02:16:03
`depth`	1
`children`	0
`last_payout`	2020-02-02 02:16:03
`cashout_time`	1969-12-31 23:59:59
`total_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`curator_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`pending_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`promoted`	0.000 HBD
`body_length`	566
`author_reputation`	103,994,393,290,019
`root_title`	"HF Proposal: Vote to Reduce Power Down Period to 4 Weeks "
`beneficiaries`	`[]`
`max_accepted_payout`	1,000,000.000 HBD
`percent_hbd`	10,000
`post_id`	94,770,481
`net_rshares`	0

@birdinc · Jan 22 '20

3 months, 4 weeks or instant. It doesn't matter and will not make a difference re: attracting new users / investment.

properties (22)

`author`	birdinc
`permlink`	q4iog2
`category`	steemdao
`json_metadata`	{"app":"steemit/0.1"}
`created`	2020-01-22 16:28:51
`last_update`	2020-01-22 16:28:51
`depth`	1
`children`	0
`last_payout`	2020-01-29 16:28:51
`cashout_time`	1969-12-31 23:59:59
`total_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`curator_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`pending_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`promoted`	0.000 HBD
`body_length`	117
`author_reputation`	7,641,301,280,384
`root_title`	"HF Proposal: Vote to Reduce Power Down Period to 4 Weeks "
`beneficiaries`	`[]`
`max_accepted_payout`	1,000,000.000 HBD
`percent_hbd`	10,000
`post_id`	94,652,852
`net_rshares`	0

@brianoflondon · Jan 24 '20

I'm relatively new here so forgive the naive tone of this question.

How many accounts and how must Steem have been saved from malicious actors by the lock down? Ballpark?

Nobody is there to save me if I post my bitcoin passphrase on line, why is a safety net needed here?

properties (22)

@brianoflondon · Nov 2 '19

$0.27

I'm supporting this and also think the proposal that @theycallmedan has made repeatedly of allowing a penalised quick power down is well worth implementing if the security implications can be thought through properly.

👍 theycallmedan

`author`	brianoflondon
`permlink`	re-thecryptodrive-q0cf2p
`category`	steemdao
`json_metadata`	{"tags":["steemdao"],"app":"steempeak/1.19.0"}
`created`	2019-11-02 13:06:27
`last_update`	2019-11-02 13:06:27
`depth`	1
`children`	12
`last_payout`	2019-11-09 13:06:27
`cashout_time`	1969-12-31 23:59:59
`total_payout_value`	0.136 HBD
`curator_payout_value`	0.136 HBD
`pending_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`promoted`	0.000 HBD
`body_length`	217
`author_reputation`	760,655,352,092,696
`root_title`	"HF Proposal: Vote to Reduce Power Down Period to 4 Weeks "
`beneficiaries`	`[]`
`max_accepted_payout`	1,000,000.000 HBD
`percent_hbd`	10,000
`post_id`	92,131,048
`net_rshares`	1,417,891,246,431
`author_curate_reward`	""

properties (23)vote details (1)

voter	weight	wgt%	rshares	pct	time
theycallmedan	0 B		1,417,891,246,431	3%

@thecryptodrive · Nov 2 '19

The quick powerdown based on burn was at first glance a cool idea but after more thought it totally circumvents any lockup period security, you might as well not have a lockup period for safety then if a hacker can get into your account and initiate a burn to get all your funds out.

👍 waleedtee

`author`	thecryptodrive
`permlink`	q0cqnu
`category`	steemdao
`json_metadata`	{"app":"steemit/0.1"}
`created`	2019-11-02 17:16:42
`last_update`	2019-11-02 17:16:42
`depth`	2
`children`	3
`last_payout`	2019-11-09 17:16:42
`cashout_time`	1969-12-31 23:59:59
`total_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`curator_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`pending_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`promoted`	0.000 HBD
`body_length`	283
`author_reputation`	103,594,115,164,820
`root_title`	"HF Proposal: Vote to Reduce Power Down Period to 4 Weeks "
`beneficiaries`	`[]`
`max_accepted_payout`	1,000,000.000 HBD
`percent_hbd`	10,000
`post_id`	92,137,390
`net_rshares`	62,336,095,943
`author_curate_reward`	""

properties (23)vote details (1)

voter	weight	wgt%	rshares	pct	time
waleedtee	0 B		62,336,095,943	100%

@brianoflondon · Nov 2 '19

Surely there could be a simple opt in and people who feel confident in their own ability to secure their accounts can sign up for high speed power down. Obviously after a 13 week wait that would kick and and the account would be marked as available for quicker power downs.

properties (22)

1 reply

@celestal · Nov 26 '19

What if you would have to use the Owner Key instead of Active in order to make an instant power down with a burn? This way you wouldn't have to be worried of losing all your funds in case of some getting their hands on your Active Key.

properties (22)

`author`	celestal
`permlink`	re-thecryptodrive-q1ke67
`category`	steemdao
`json_metadata`	{"tags":["steemdao"],"app":"steempeak/2.1.1"}
`created`	2019-11-26 07:01:33
`last_update`	2019-11-26 07:01:33
`depth`	3
`children`	0
`last_payout`	2019-12-03 07:01:33
`cashout_time`	1969-12-31 23:59:59
`total_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`curator_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`pending_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`promoted`	0.000 HBD
`body_length`	236
`author_reputation`	196,988,724,727,163
`root_title`	"HF Proposal: Vote to Reduce Power Down Period to 4 Weeks "
`beneficiaries`	`[]`
`max_accepted_payout`	1,000,000.000 HBD
`percent_hbd`	10,000
`post_id`	92,841,010
`net_rshares`	0

@therealwolf · Nov 2 '19 (edited)

$0.05

How would you feel if someone would gain access to your active-key, and could steal all your funds in a week or two, while the bad actor would only lose maybe 20% (or however much is getting burned) from the potential 100%? You might be active around here right now nearly every day, but this is a serious security issue we have to carefully consider.

👍 z8teyb289qav9z, waleedtee, ozchartart
👎 nosdos

`author`	therealwolf
`permlink`	re-brianoflondon-q0cfpg
`category`	steemdao
`json_metadata`	{"tags":["steemdao"],"app":"steempeak/1.19.0"}
`created`	2019-11-02 13:19:57
`last_update`	2019-11-02 15:26:09
`depth`	2
`children`	7
`last_payout`	2019-11-09 13:19:57
`cashout_time`	1969-12-31 23:59:59
`total_payout_value`	0.024 HBD
`curator_payout_value`	0.023 HBD
`pending_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`promoted`	0.000 HBD
`body_length`	351
`author_reputation`	582,208,885,469,814
`root_title`	"HF Proposal: Vote to Reduce Power Down Period to 4 Weeks "
`beneficiaries`	`[]`
`max_accepted_payout`	1,000,000.000 HBD
`percent_hbd`	10,000
`post_id`	92,131,340
`net_rshares`	278,640,462,458
`author_curate_reward`	""

properties (23)vote details (4)

voter	rshares	pct
ozchartart	32,327,180,623	1%
z8teyb289qav9z	200,868,096,597	1%
nosdos	-18,163,608,061	-100%
waleedtee	63,608,793,299	100%

@fsm-liquid · Nov 2 '19

The bad actor doesn't lose 20%, they gain 80% lmao.

👍 practicalthought

`author`	fsm-liquid
`permlink`	re-therealwolf-q0clc7
`category`	steemdao
`json_metadata`	{"tags":["steemdao"],"app":"steempeak/1.19.0"}
`created`	2019-11-02 15:22:36
`last_update`	2019-11-02 15:22:36
`depth`	3
`children`	1
`last_payout`	2019-11-09 15:22:36
`cashout_time`	1969-12-31 23:59:59
`total_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`curator_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`pending_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`promoted`	0.000 HBD
`body_length`	51
`author_reputation`	365,976,853,407
`root_title`	"HF Proposal: Vote to Reduce Power Down Period to 4 Weeks "
`beneficiaries`	`[]`
`max_accepted_payout`	1,000,000.000 HBD
`percent_hbd`	10,000
`post_id`	92,134,622
`net_rshares`	2,415,584,138
`author_curate_reward`	""

properties (23)vote details (1)

voter	weight	wgt%	rshares	pct	time
practicalthought	0 B		2,415,584,138	10%

1 reply

@geekgirl · Nov 2 '19

$0.27

You could implement whitelisted accounts that funds can be transferred to that users can set. And maybe also implement 2fa. I would love to see power down lowered to one week. It is much needed and many in favor of.

👍 theycallmedan, shammi

`author`	geekgirl
`permlink`	q0cn4i
`category`	steemdao
`json_metadata`	{"app":"steemit/0.1"}
`created`	2019-11-02 16:00:18
`last_update`	2019-11-02 16:00:18
`depth`	3
`children`	3
`last_payout`	2019-11-09 16:00:18
`cashout_time`	1969-12-31 23:59:59
`total_payout_value`	0.136 HBD
`curator_payout_value`	0.135 HBD
`pending_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`promoted`	0.000 HBD
`body_length`	215
`author_reputation`	1,590,042,504,791,540
`root_title`	"HF Proposal: Vote to Reduce Power Down Period to 4 Weeks "
`beneficiaries`	`[]`
`max_accepted_payout`	1,000,000.000 HBD
`percent_hbd`	10,000
`post_id`	92,135,693
`net_rshares`	1,418,300,538,752
`author_curate_reward`	""

properties (23)vote details (2)

voter	weight	wgt%	rshares	pct	time
shammi	0 B		0	2%
theycallmedan	0 B		1,418,300,538,752	3%

3 replies

@thecryptodrive · Nov 2 '19

Yes I’m in favour of a lowered minimum vesting period with a dynamic options for people who want to lockup longer for security, only reason I didn’t include in the proposal was due to the added complexity, this HF will already be complex due to SMTs.

properties (22)

`author`	thecryptodrive
`permlink`	q0cpr3
`category`	steemdao
`json_metadata`	{"app":"steemit/0.1"}
`created`	2019-11-02 16:57:03
`last_update`	2019-11-02 16:57:03
`depth`	3
`children`	0
`last_payout`	2019-11-09 16:57:03
`cashout_time`	1969-12-31 23:59:59
`total_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`curator_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`pending_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`promoted`	0.000 HBD
`body_length`	250
`author_reputation`	103,594,115,164,820
`root_title`	"HF Proposal: Vote to Reduce Power Down Period to 4 Weeks "
`beneficiaries`	`[]`
`max_accepted_payout`	1,000,000.000 HBD
`percent_hbd`	10,000
`post_id`	92,137,014
`net_rshares`	0

@chesatochi · Nov 3 '19

I believe is a good idea and I am going to vlog about it this morning.

Posted using [Partiko Android](https://partiko.app/referral/chesatochi)

properties (22)

@chireerocks · Nov 3 '19

$0.05

@thecryptodrive, I am **Supporting** this and definitely **4 Weeks** makes sense both way. Hope that soon this change will be live and running.

You are right and this is discussed many times, **13 Weeks** is very long time and many **Investors** prefer more **Liquid Space**.

Yes, more complex changes can make things complex. At this moment this **Space** needs one change at a time to keep everything smooth.

Have a wonderful time ahead and stay blessed.

Posted using [Partiko Android](https://partiko.app/referral/chireerocks)

👍 thecryptodrive

properties (23)vote details (1)

@steem-ph · Nov 19 '19

If investors prefer liquid cryptos, they can always buy Liquid Steem.

I think you forgot about that 😕

👍 chireerocks

properties (23)vote details (1)

@chireerocks · Nov 20 '19

Thank you for sharing your inputs. Stay blessed.

👍 steem-ph

properties (23)vote details (1)

@thecryptodrive · Nov 5 '19

Perfect thanks so much for your vote!

properties (22)

@chireerocks · Nov 6 '19

Welcome and thank you. 🙂

Posted using [Partiko Android](https://partiko.app/referral/chireerocks)

properties (22)

@chrisrice · Nov 2 '19

I dislike this proposal.

One of the reasons why I chose Steem is because I can lock it up for 13 weeks.

Posted using [Partiko Android](https://partiko.app/referral/chrisrice)

👍 waleedtee

properties (23)vote details (1)

@contrabourdon · Nov 2 '19

Great idea @thecryptodrive. 
@untersatz curate 100

Posted using [Partiko iOS](https://partiko.app/referral/contrabourdon)

👍 thecryptodrive

properties (23)vote details (1)

@steem-ph · Nov 19 '19

Why do you think it's a great idea?

properties (22)

@untersatz · Nov 2 '19

<center>This post has been upvoted by witness [@untersatz](https://untersatz.steem.design). You've done a great job!
<sup>The [@untersatz](https://untersatz.steem.design) witness and manual curation is under the guidance of @contrabourdon and @organduo.</sup></center><center><sup>Current VP: 69.52%</sup></center>

properties (22)

@contrabourdon · Nov 2 '19

@organduo

Posted using [Partiko iOS](https://partiko.app/referral/contrabourdon)

properties (22)

@crypto.piotr · Nov 5 '19

$0.07

Hello dear friend @thecryptodrive.

I have noticed that each tribe has the possibility to configure its shutdown time, as well as the period for the payout and the distribution of the reward percentage.

User reactions and opinions in this regard should be considered and taken into account, for modifications that may be included in the next HF.

A decrease in shutdown time is necessary. In fact, it is a clamor of users for a long time. Then, the opinion of the users should be taken into account.

A strong investor always wants to feel control over their assets. Having his resources dammed for a period of 13 weeks is not attractive to anyone. Then we will find negative reactions and rejection.

Large crypto investors are looking forward to market behavior and enjoy the flexibility of moving their funds at a given time. 

***The "hacking protection" speech is over.***
The possibility that users can withdraw their assets should not cause negative effects on the price of the currency, on the contrary, this would encourage investment, since very few are willing to compromise their assets for the absurd period of 13 weeks.
Those who trust the blockchain steem will always bring their resources back. They can withdraw them, make their investments and bring it back.


All best, Piotr.

👍 thecryptodrive

properties (23)vote details (1)

@thecryptodrive · Nov 5 '19

Fully agreed with your sentiment. Thanks dear friend @crypto.piotr

properties (22)

@crypto.piotr · Nov 19 '19

Dear @thecryptodrive

Any clue where of 13 weeks power down came from in the first place? there must be a reason why it's 13, not 4. Just curious

Yours
Piotr

properties (22)

@abitcoinskeptic · Nov 20 '19

52 weeks in a year means 13 weeks is 1/4year. 4 weeks means 1/13 a year.
It's not a coincidence =)

👍 crypto.piotr

properties (23)vote details (1)

@crypto.piotr · Dec 16 '19

Dear @abitcoinskeptic

I just realized that I never read and thanked you for this comment. Somehow I've skipped it. So ... late thx :)

ps.
May I ask you for little favour? I'm not sure if I did ask you about it already or not (hope I'm not repeating myself). 

Could you please check out also my recent post if you have few min and share your thoughts on questions related to concept of "introducing steem blockchain to businesses":
https://steemit.com/steemleo/@crypto.piotr/my-very-first-trip-to-switzerland-one-of-the-most-crypto-and-blockchain-friendly-place-on-the-planet-earth

Your feedback is always appreciated ;) And I will upvote most valuable comment with 100-200k SP coming from project.hope account.
Yours, Piotr

properties (22)

@crypto.piotr · Nov 19 '19

$0.05

Dear @thecryptodrive

> There was also a discussion about adding an instant power down by burning 5-10% of the stake

From user point of view that would be TRAGIC. Powering up means locking your resources for some period of time. Mostly for security reasons (at least that's point of view of a user).

After all even if 3rd party would find a way to sign in with my active or master key, then I don't have to worry that my funds will be completely removed from the account. I have 7 days to notice that power down started and I've 7 days to react.

If instant power down would be available, then my believe that funds on my steem account are safe would be forever gone.

Just like you said:
> This has been found to be very dangerous, a hacked account could be instantly drained via this burn mechanism and therefor circumvents any lockup period safety benefits

Yours, Piotr

👍 thecryptodrive

properties (23)vote details (1)

@thecryptodrive · Nov 20 '19

Correct, I am not endorsing an instant powerdown, I am merely proposing reducing the power down period from 13 to 4 weeks.

properties (22)

@crypto.piotr · Dec 10 '19

$0.04

Hi @thecryptodrive

I've decided to check out your profile to see if you posted anything interesting lately. And I was wondering - why you're so quiet?

Hope you didn't give up on Steemit yet.
Yours, Piotr

👍 thecryptodrive

properties (23)vote details (1)

@thecryptodrive · Dec 11 '19

$0.02

Hey friend, I am active behind the scenes. I have a personal project @sbdpotato which i do posts on everyday and still involved in BuildTeam with dlease.io and Ginabot and a few services.

👍 dustbunny, crypto.piotr, googlybot

properties (23)vote details (3)

@crypto.piotr · Dec 15 '19

$0.03

Thx for your reply @thecryptodrive. I've never heard about @sbdpotato - will check this project right away.

Is dlease popular after hf21?

ps.
May I ask you for little favour? I'm not sure if I did ask you about it already or not (hope I'm not repeating myself). 

Could you please check out also my recent post if you have few min and share your thoughts on questions related to concept of "introducing steem blockchain to businesses":
https://steemit.com/steemleo/@crypto.piotr/my-very-first-trip-to-switzerland-one-of-the-most-crypto-and-blockchain-friendly-place-on-the-planet-earth

Your feedback is always appreciated ;) And I will upvote most valuable comment with 100-200k SP coming from project.hope account.
Yours, Piotr

👍 thecryptodrive

properties (23)vote details (1)

2 replies

@demotruk · Nov 14 '19

I'm sorry to the witnesses whom I've supported for a long time but I can't keep voting for you guys if you support this proposal. To me removing the long term commitment aspect of Steem Power would be the antithesis of what Steem is about.

properties (22)

@thecryptodrive · Nov 15 '19

4 weeks is still rather a long lock-up period, Whaleshares has a very long staking period and afaik hasn't really helped them much. People should take the long-term view voluntarily rather than forcefully at blockchain level. If the concern is that existing investors would divest, they have had plenty of time to do so already, especially those here since 2016, they have had many full 13 week cycles as opportunity to divest fully.

properties (22)

@demotruk · Nov 15 '19

4 weeks provides no financial incentive at all for voters to be concerned for how their voting affects the long term value of their investment - they can always divest within 4 weeks and have little incentive to bed concerned for the long term health of the network. Unlike Bitcoin, there is no investment in physical hardware that will become worthless if the network does; there needs to be some other mechanism for tying voters interest to the long term health of the network

properties (22)

1 reply

@steem-ph · Nov 19 '19

People DO take the long-term lockup volunterily.

Everyone that doesn't want their Steem staked, can simply buy liquid Steem.

properties (22)

@eirik · Nov 2 '19 (edited)

$0.11

The best proposal outhere. It can attract many new people that just don't like having their money frozen for so long.

👍 thecryptodrive

properties (23)vote details (1)

@steem-ph · Nov 18 '19

Can't people buy liquid Steem without ever having it locked in Steem Power?

properties (22)

@thecryptodrive · Nov 2 '19

Nice, glad u like it!

properties (22)

@enginewitty · Nov 4 '19

With all the people powering down and struggling with the #newsteem protocols, I'm not sure this is the best time to implement it. I'm all for it, but feel the timing is off.

👍 guiltyparties

properties (23)vote details (1)

@thecryptodrive · Nov 4 '19

I think  if stakeholders wanted to exit they would have done so already, many have been here way longer than 13 weeks.

properties (22)

@fsm-liquid · Nov 2 '19 (edited)

$0.54

In my opinion it's a horrible idea.

When an account is compromised with 4 week powerdown worst case scenario if it's recovered on day 28+ all its stake whether it's powered up or not are stolen (Is it even worth recovering anymore?). Even if its recovered day 7+ after it's stolen it loses at least 25% of its powered up stake while with our current powerdown period at worst case when it's recovered on day 28+ it only loses 4/13 of its powered up stake, a little more than 30%. After 30 days of course you lose the account to the hacker on both cases.
Shortening powerdown is also bad because how our hardfork works. 4 weeks is not too bad (still worse than 13 weeks), but 1 week is plain horrible. If it's only 1 week exchanges will undoubtedly start voting for witnesses. You say our powerdown period is too long compared to EOS but they are having a huge governance problem. Even Dan Larimer is proposing staking pools with up to 10 years(!) lockup period and the 3 day lockup EOS tokens have 0 vote for BPs, the minimum lockup to have any vote for BPs is 3 month, pretty close with Steem right now and it seems like it won't have gradual weekly powerdown like Steem has. If an "investor" can't even commit to their "investment" for 13 weeks do they even can be counted as "invested" in the chain? If they just want to speculate on STEEM price that's what liquid STEEM is for, hold those instead.
The instant powerdown with burn fee is even more horrible idea. Now instead of losing 25% of your powered up stake each week when your account is compromised you lose 100% right away, GG!
However, I agree that in order to participate in PoB someone shouldn't be forced to lock up their capital for 13 weeks.

Here are my proposed changes instead:
- 2 separate staking pools
- The first pool has 1 week powerdown (even better than 1 month) and the second pool has 13 weeks powerdown
- Entitlements of the first pool: VP and RC
- Entitlements of the second pool: VP, RC, Witness vote, SPS vote, etc. (The benefits of SP right now).
- Delegations works as if the pools are mixed. (You can delegate 210 STEEM away if you have 100 STEEM staked on the first pool and 110 STEEM staked on the second pool). Delegations delegate VP and RC like how it works right now and will interact with the RC delegation pool however it works in the next hardfork.
- SP reward on posts can go to first pool or the second according to witness consensus. The name of each pool should be discussed with the community (only one of them keeps the name SP).
- Stake on first pool can be converted to the second pool instantly but not the other way around (similar to Dan Larimer's proposal).
- Current SP can be converted to first pool or the second pool on hardfork according to witness consensus. Each has their benefits and drawbacks. If it's converted to the first pool non-committed people gets weeded out really fast as they won't be converting their stake into the second pool but witness votes basically reset to zero and may cause instability in governance and block production for a short term. Converting to second pool is safer but will take 13 week correction time until it shows the results of the previous way. Of course we can assign a ratio too (like 90% goes to the first pool and 10% goes to the second pool) and have the benefits of both but needs a little longer implementation time.
- When these separate pools is implemented I think making the second pool powerdown period even longer than 13 week can be considered if we want to see more committed witness voters and more protection when an account is compromised.

Yes, these changes will be complicated to code but I think this is the way to go instead of simply reducing the powerdown period to please the so-called "investors" which in my opinion is very shortsighted .

That's my thoughts on this.

👍 ssjsasha, neoxian, therealwolf, gtg, xplosive, practicalthought, d-zero, quantumdeveloper

properties (23)vote details (8)

@lordbutterfly · Nov 3 '19

The reasoning behind your comment is plain stupid. Sry. 99% of cryptos don't have a 13 week powerdown and they function perfectly well. Security? You offered such a fringe example that happens in 0.1% of cases here. 


The 13 week powerdown is extremely detrimental to the price of steem and offers basically nothing.  
Adjustment could be made for the person staking to stake for however long he wants or 2f authorization added.  

All those things can be added as long as the 13 week powerdown is eliminated.  

That's the single biggest culprit in steem being at 80th in mc

👍 azircon
👎 nosdos

properties (23)vote details (2)

@fsm-liquid · Nov 3 '19

Do you not even notice that I propose 1 week powerdown alongside 13 weeks powerdown? I just want the 1 week lockup to not have any voting power for witnesses and proposals. if it's possible to keep PoB from being gamed without lockup at all then the 1 week powerdown can be eliminated.

In Steem we use our keys an awful lot compared to other cryptos. When this chain become more popular, if that ever happens, incentives to steal accounts will be way bigger than now, Compromised accounts will still be fringe cases but will happen a lot more often. 2F auth doesn't protect anyone that got their key(s) compromised unless it's implemented on blockchain level.

If custom stake period is implemented I want staked STEEM have vote weights for witnesses and proposals proportional to the stake period.

properties (22)

@steem-ph · Nov 19 '19

If someone doesn't want to stake their Steem for 13 weeks, can't they just buy liquid Steem?

I think you forgot to mention that Steem CAN be bought, just like any other liquid crypto like Bitcoin.

- That is what liquid Steem is for and IMO there should be a clear distinction between liquid Steem and Steem Power.

properties (22)

@smooth · Nov 3 '19 (edited)

$1.08

Way too complicated IMO. Just not worth even close to that level of mechanism for something (lock up) that is very minor to the platform overall.

If someone were building a system like Steem today it would not have 13 week lockup and certainly would not have the 2 year lockup that was originally there (and for which reducing to 13 weeks was proposed as a compromise). It would probably have a few days to possibly a few weeks of lockup, or maybe none.

These were experimental ideas, worth a try, but really did not demonstrate any clear benefits, did not catch on more broadly, and should be left behind.

👍 z8teyb289qav9z, ozchartart, xplosive

properties (23)vote details (3)

@thecryptodrive · Nov 2 '19

Steem needs to be simple for users, we cater for more normies than EOS does so we shouldn’t get too complicated, Dan tends to make things too convoluted and technical for the average user. We already have 3 currencies on Steem, adding an extra pool is akin to having 4. I don’t think a 4 week pd schedule will create a governance issue, take for example a major shareholder in a real world company stock, there is no lockup period traditionally unless that was the terms given in a buyout or something but that won’t be common, investors in such stocks still exercise their voting rights for the good of their investment same as if you own a property in s body corporate, you can sell it anytime but doesn’t mean while you hold the property you will make malicious voting decisions at meetings.

The issue with EOS and alot of crypto is the quality of investors, no matter if the lockup is short or long, a bad acting large stakeholder can still help mess up the project.

For myself a short or long time period won’t change my decision making process, my investment in Steem is my time over the years that makes me invested. 

I do like your point about the burn being a huge security risk and defeats the object of the security feature of the 30 day recovery period. 

I also urge users to split their stake across multiple accounts and for ease of use can delegate to the main account. Having as shorter pd period can help users decentralise their holdings in this manner for increased security.

properties (22)

@fsm-liquid · Nov 2 '19

$0.02

Steem needs to be simple for users, I agree. That's why I concede at two pools instead of Dan's wacky amount of pools. Normie users actually doesn't need to learn about the extra pool at all. If SP rewards for posts and curation goes to the first pool then they don't need to learn about the second pool unless they are interested in voting for witnesses and proposals. If it goes to the second pool users don't need to learn about the first pool unless they actively don't want witness and proposal voting power and prefer faster power down and don't mind the lower security. The choice depends whether you (witnesses) consider witness and proposal voting a "normie feature" or not. Users only forced to learn about both pools if post and curation rewards goes to both pools which I'm strongly against. While we are at it, I'm also proposing disabling SBD rewards entirely on posts next hardfork as the DAO already provides constant downward pressure to SBD price regardless of the debt ratio, this way normie users don't need to know about SBD unless they are interested about holding this particular stablecoin.

This is a tangent but no lockup in most real life companies is the very reason company's shareholders prioritize short term profits over sustainability and treats their workers pretty badly knowing when in near inevitable crash they can bail right away, even worse after crashing they cry to government to get bailed out to "protect their worker's job" while they have already bailed themselves and became shareholders on other companies (or simply keep their wealth from selling the stocks). Taxpayers get screwed too even though they have nothing to do with the company.
Yes, most stocks in real life companies don't have lockup period but having lockup period for governance voting forces the stakeholder looking at the best interest of the token value at least for the duration of the lockup. We are a blockchain community not companies. We have no workers to exploit as they can simply leave and we have no government to bail us out when we make a lot of bad short term decisions. One of the main reasons we have lockup period at all is so exchanges can't vote, the lower the duration the more vulnerable we are to that and this complements with the security issues I mentioned on the previous post too. Exchanges are not in for long haul, STEEM is just one asset they hold and it's not even theirs.

You agree that quality of investors of crypto is bad but you advocate for shorter lockup? If it's implemented like I proposed we can still market the lowered (1 week) staking period to new investors and if they want to get involved in governance they only allowed to play a long game. Where's the drawback? Most of our bad stakeholders now are due to ninjamine and/or only invested because of bad economics pre-HF21 anyway.

Sure, I believe you are a good actor but you can't just project your behavior to other actors. If a system rely on all its participant to act good it's garbage. Why are you even advocating shorter powerdown period if it doesn't affect your behavior whatsoever?

Yeah, keeping multiple private keys for multiple accounts where an account already have multiple private keys is totally user friendly. How about having a single account with higher security where 100% (or at least significant portion) of your stake doesn't get stolen within the account recovery window?

👍 svamiva

properties (23)vote details (1)

@jphamer1 · Nov 8 '19

Steemit just needs to stay decentralised and thats pretty much it, oh and keep going. As for the power down i say keep it at 13 weeks. No reason other than in the real world 13 weeks lock up of your investment is nothing and second why encourage volatility in the Steem price.

properties (22)

1 reply

@therealwolf · Nov 2 '19

$0.04

Good point you've made about the safety issue regarding power-down time. Also, having two separate staking pools is too rigid and we should have more than that. 13 weeks was a somewhat random number. Having a dynamic range (e.g. 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, 12 months, 2 years, 5 years) would satisfy more people.

👍 z8teyb289qav9z, ozchartart, quantumdeveloper, takry, smooth
👎 nosdos

properties (23)vote details (6)

@fsm-liquid · Nov 2 '19

I mean at least it's still more flexible than just 1 staking pool we have right now. With those dynamic ranges I am guessing you want to incentive longer staking the same way in Dan's proposal? In my opinion there will be conflict of interest between 1 month stakers and 5 years stakers as 5 year stake have so much leverage against shorter stakers with less tokens invested and it will be way more complicated to implement and for users to undestand especially new ones, we have nowhere near as much capital as BlockOne for development, testing, and educating users. The two separate pools is compromise between our current one and Dan's proposal.
13 week is arbitrary, so does 1 month and 2 years previously. 7 day voting window is arbitrary too. Arbitrary =/= bad. For the second pool period if the consensus thinks it's too long then shorten it next HF, if it's too short then prolong it next HF while the first pool period will simply follow the voting window period.

properties (22)

5 replies

@quantumdeveloper · Nov 2 '19

I think there also should be an option to have it powered up forever.

properties (22)

@thecryptodrive · Nov 2 '19

Yes I am all for a dynamic range, I would like to be able to set longer periods for the Steem I intend to hodl. The 4 weeks baseline is still good, we have even people asking for as low as one week in comments here. 4 weeks is also a familiar lockup period much like a 30 day term deposit.

properties (22)

2 replies

@geekgirl · Nov 2 '19

$0.02

Four weeks is still too long. It should be lowered to one week.

👍 thecryptodrive, shammi

properties (23)vote details (2)

@martie7 · Nov 2 '19

3 seconds will be fine, but then we don’t need any *steem power*. We will just have steems only.

properties (22)

@steem-ph · Nov 19 '19

Exactly 😂

What's the point of decreasing the staking time for Steem Power if we already have liquid Steem?

properties (22)

@guiltyparties · Nov 3 '19 (edited)

$1.33

This isn't a frontend vs chain development problem. It's something that needs a blended approach.

I'm for the change if:
1. Accounts **must opt-in** to the 4 week divestment rather than opt-out of it. The 13 week divestment is a security feature that prevents accounts from being instantly cleared out if compromised.
2. It is treated like an advanced feature and not like a simple click of a button. Frontends should commit ahead of time to provide sufficient information to users who are selecting it.

We have to recognize that while we're aiming to improve our attractiveness to investors we're also reciting "mainstreaming" like a broken record. There's no way to mix advanced and basic. If we try we'll end up with something that doesn't work for anyone.

There are rolling waves of phishing and hacking on Steem. We recently suppressed one such wave. Accounts that are compromised may not know they are compromised as they rely on posting authority through myriad dapps, which does not inform them something is wrong when the hacker changes their keys. It usually takes up to a week for an account to notice they are hacked and their funds are being moved. If they lose a quarter of their powered up STEEM the results to those investors and to the retention of same would be devastating. There's this perception that most phishing victims are new users with no investment. That's false. Most of the victims were active for months if not years and either accumulated or invested their stake. The largest hack (irrecoverable) was about 36k STEEM and the next one down, from an account that then invested and became a whale, was 10k. The opt-in should have a timer of at least 7 days but preferably 30 days, same as other key functions, before the opt-in takes effect. That would add another layer of protection.

Other forms of exploitation that we like to call "abuse" are highly likely to occur but shouldn't preclude implementation. Removal of a capability to halt a potential minor risk isn't the correct response in my opinion. I treat phishing/hacking as a major risk, for the record. Those who haven't been victims yet may disagree but anyone can be next.

At the same time the 4 week schedule holds merit for advanced users who know how to safeguard and monitor their wallets and are active traders. Tying up capital that can be used for trading is pretty stupid. Tying up capital is however necessary to outfit projects and to obviously perform basic functions like curation with any level of enjoyment. Those same advanced users should arguably have the capability to swap their trustee account and recover themselves if compromised.

Whether a divestment schedule change can attract investors is another matter. We're assuming that it will. It's going to take developer hours and a hardfork, both of which are expensive for everyone already invested and involved. Granted it can be bundled with the next planned fork, which would make it more acceptable to the ventures. It's still going to take time from the development team no matter how the code will be approached.

We need to answer the following before we start to the best of our ability:
1. What quantifiable estimate of value is it projected to add?
2. How will this change be communicated to new investors?
3. Will it cause rapid divestment by the current investors?

👍 therealwolf, joshman, neddie

properties (23)vote details (3)

@cryptoastronaut · Dec 31 '19

Why should it take developers time to change a number in the code "13" to the number 4, instead. I'm sorry it might be slightly more difficult than that, but not by much. Seems like it could be done in a few days, at most.

Posted using [Partiko Android](https://partiko.app/referral/cryptoastronaut)

properties (22)

@guiltyparties · Jan 1 '20

There are things that can conflict as a result.  Although it seems simple its not.

properties (22)

@thecryptodrive · Nov 3 '19

I don't think we need to baby customers too much, there is inherent hack risk in crypto, bitcoin is way more popular than Steem and has no such safeguards. My ideal implementation would be 4 weeks defacto but have advanced features to increase number of weeks per individual choice, however this will make the code for this HF more complex and we want to keep it light because of SMT complexity already, big risk adding complicated changes to this HF.

properties (22)

@guiltyparties · Nov 3 '19

I would agree except we are onboarding mainstream users.

properties (22)

@therealwolf · Nov 3 '19

> I don't think we need to baby customers too much, there is inherent hack risk in crypto, bitcoin is way more popular than Steem and has no such safeguards.

LOL. Because BTC is treated differently than STEEM and people have different expectations from it. I'm using my active key quite actively, because I know that the worst that can happen is maybe 1/13 of my Steem being poof. With 1 week or 4 weeks, the risk of me not seeing when a powerdown happens or when someone has access to my active authority (for whatever reason) is far higher.

> however this will make the code for this HF more complex and we want to keep it light because of SMT complexity already, big risk adding complicated changes to this HF.

Keeping it light aka. making it easy is a quick way to add tech debt. If the correct approach is to add a dynamic period, where existing accounts also have to opt-into it, then that is the approach we have to take.

👎 nosdos

properties (23)vote details (1)

@jennyferandtony · Nov 4 '19

Hi,i am a verry verry new user and never use cryptocurenci . 
I read coment were people complain for the long time,other not good if are short time , other to hold 2 3 year the power down. 
My matematic are diferent for example if you have 100 power and want to power down you are alow to do only 5% , 100-5%=5 and 5:13=0,3846 a week and if make 13 x19 =247 weeks and this in my mint are 5 years or not ?

properties (22)

@thecryptodrive · Nov 5 '19

I'm not 100% sure what you are saying but the current powerdown period is 13 weeks, this proposal seeks to reduce it to 4 weeks, that is all for now to keep it simple.

properties (22)

@joeypark · Nov 6 '19

I absolutely agree with you!

properties (22)

@kingscrown · Jan 25 '20

i like this

👍 allinbox

properties (23)vote details (1)

@kus-knee · Nov 2 '19

$0.12

This would certainly alleviate some fears for potential investors! 

Great to have you here building, promoting and guiding Steem @thecryptodrive!

👍 thecryptodrive, ackza

properties (23)vote details (2)

@ackza · Nov 2 '19

glad to see u back bro here is 1 peosp @peos privacy on eos token 

![](https://cdn.steemitimages.com/DQmXhMdY6NS2apV3jurrPpTgTfWZvJ6CHS3cwqPLVEJXfG8/image.png)

properties (22)

@kus-knee · Nov 2 '19

Good stuff!

properties (22)

@steem-ph · Nov 18 '19

Can't investors buy liquid Steem at any time without ever having their Steem "locked up for long periods of time"?

properties (22)

@thecryptodrive · Nov 2 '19

Thank u @kus-knee.

properties (22)

@lordbutterfly · Nov 3 '19

$0.05

A big fat YES!  

And it should be 1 week.  Absolutely no reason why it should not be 1 week.  

And the safety feature some are clammoring about .... don't be idiots. That feature is important in 0.01% of cases and does not justify such a long powerdown and losing so many potential investors.  
99% of tokens have no staking and they offer satisfactory safety for your funds.  
So this is a non argument. 

This is the only thing that could potentially save steem. Not the smts not something else...  This.  
Save our shitty volume,  and attract exchanges and investors.  

I can't stress enough how important this change would be.

👍 thecryptodrive, azircon
👎 nosdos

properties (23)vote details (3)

@steem-ph · Nov 19 '19

I think you are forgetting that "investors" who don't like staking can already buy liquid Steem, just like they can with Bitcoin @lordbutterlfy.

properties (22)

@thecryptodrive · Nov 5 '19

perfect thanks for your support, 4 weeks is a good interim reduction that will not get too much push back, can look at reducing to 1 week on next HF if this proves to be successful. There is however the risk of exchanges then powering up user stake and voting like on EOS, in such a case we can blacklist exchange accounts from voting.

properties (22)

@martie7 · Nov 2 '19

>There was also a discussion about adding an instant power down by burning 5-10% of the stake

Nice idea to burn more steem!

properties (22)

@thecryptodrive · Nov 2 '19

We decided that was a bad idea for account security, if your account gets hacked, hacker can burn to get all funds out.

properties (22)

@lordbutterfly · Nov 5 '19 (edited)

Add another layer of security then. This should most definitely be a feature. Catering to those very few irresponsible to the detriment of the whole platform is extremely foolish. 
And they are very very few.

properties (22)

1 reply

@matt-a · Nov 13 '19 (edited)

$0.06

Ahh, so close to success!  I just voted with the @agoric.systems voting proxy.  Looks like you're just 300k SP shy of success!  Just resteemed, as well.  I'd love to see this happen and as @smooth was say, I echo the sentiment "I'm all down for even 1 week."  So glad it isn't YEARS like it was in the beginning haha.

Another idea I liked that someone was tossing around (I forget who it was, maybe @theycallmedan?) was maybe the possibility to opt to go an immediate powerdown at an expense.  The expense being, say, burning 5% or 10% of the stake being powered down for an immediate liquid position.  That might be steep, I don't know, but I like the idea of having that as an option a lot.

👍 thecryptodrive

properties (23)vote details (1)

@thecryptodrive · Nov 13 '19

Thanks for the vote, I hope the change happens. The burn is dangerous cause if a hacker gets hold of your account he can insta draw out all your SP, also means exchanges can power up and use their clients stake to vote themselves in as witness etc, if they need the liquidity they just burn 5% anytime they want.

👍 thecryptodrive

properties (23)vote details (1)

@mindtrap · Nov 2 '19

$0.11

I wouldn’t mind if it was reduced to 2 weeks tbh. Or even a week only

👍 thecryptodrive, eirik

properties (23)vote details (2)

@thecryptodrive · Nov 2 '19

We can’t go less than one week otherwise can powerdown transfer to another account and vote twice. Some stakeholders don’t feel 2 weeks is enough for funds protection incase of a hack. Personally i would like to see a min period like one week with user defined longer lengths for those who want to lockup funds longer. For simplicity we won’t put that on the table for this HF.

properties (22)

@mindtrap · Nov 2 '19 (edited)

Sure we can go to one week. Or even less. All it would take is the implementation of a rule that wouldn’t allow anyone to delegate nor to start a power down procedure unless they have been sitting on 100% VP. Sounds crazy?

properties (22)

1 reply

@preciousadu · Nov 3 '19

The savings on the wallet can be acting like the current powerdown system I think they should just switch it. Once one save fund come in 13 weeks while power down should be 3days

Posted using [Partiko Android](https://partiko.app/referral/preciousadu)

properties (22)

@smooth · Nov 3 '19

$0.02

I feel we could reduce the voting time. Given all of the experiments we've done (12 hours, 24 hours, 30 days, 7 days), the one that seems to have worked the best is 24 hours.

7 days isn't nearly long enough for people who want evergreen rewards, so they need to come up with another solution anyway, and after the first day or two of 7 days, diminishing returns kicks in and the amount of voting goes _way_ down. Later votes are probably disproportionately used by scammers too.

👍 thecryptodrive

properties (23)vote details (1)

1 reply

@steem-ph · Nov 18 '19

You never addressed the issue of exchanges using some of their deposits to vote on witnesses if the Power Down length is to short.

You also failed to state that investors can invest in liquid Steem, just like any other cryptocurrency like Bitcoin without having to even stake 1 Steem.

properties (22)

@nextgen622 · Nov 2 '19

$0.02

Yes, exactly what we need.

👍 thecryptodrive

properties (23)vote details (1)

@steem-ph · Nov 19 '19

Why do we need to decrease the Power Down time for "investors"? 

- Anyone and everyone already has the option of buying liquid Steem without it ever getting staked.

properties (22)

@ocdb · Nov 2 '19

Voted for visibility and burned rewards. This vote is not a yes or no regarding the proposal.

👍 blocktrades, thecryptodrive
👎 ranchorelaxo

properties (23)vote details (3)

@onthewayout · Nov 3 '19

$0.04

I do not think that your premise for the proposal is proven. It may be correct (or not) but we need data and not take this decision lightly. Since my response is getting too long I decided instead to write a [post](https://steemit.com/steem/@onthewayout/does-the-13-week-powerdown-period-prevent-investing-in-steem) about it.

👍 thecryptodrive

properties (23)vote details (1)

@thecryptodrive · Nov 5 '19

I agree with the exchange risk, I think 4 weeks will deter them enough. We can also blacklist exchange accounts from voting as part of steem chain policy. We can't prove whether 4 weeks will stimulate investment, it is a hypothesis, only by testing and experimenting can we prove or disprove the hypothesis and adjust accordingly. 4 weeks is a good starting point.

properties (22)

@demotruk · Nov 15 '19

Who would maintain such a blacklist? Are you seriously suggesting that blacklisting votes for witnesses in DPOS is acceptable policy?

properties (22)

3 replies

@steem-ph · Nov 19 '19

We wouldn't be able to blacklist exchanges as easily as you think, especially if they dug in their heals and voted for their own witnesses using the stakes of their depositors.

properties (22)

@project7 · Nov 5 '19

Agreed and voted from Steemhunt! Thanks for the great proposal.

properties (22)

@proxy.token · Nov 12 '19

$0.20

We @proxy.token and KR community actively support your proposal ! Actually we want shorter powerdown period, but the four weeks you suggest could be the first step of that.

Thank you so much for your proposal, @thecrytodrive !!

👍 thecryptodrive

properties (23)vote details (1)

@thecryptodrive · Nov 12 '19

An absolute pleasure, I think 4 weeks is a number most people can get behind and later we can reduce if this proves to be successful. Appreciate your support.

properties (22)

@jack8831 · Nov 14 '19 (edited)

$0.06

You did good job, @thecryptodrive. I'm happy I could support you with that proposal.

.... from Mr.Salmon.

👍 thecryptodrive

properties (23)vote details (1)

1 reply

@proxy.token · Nov 14 '19 (edited)

$0.06

Your proposal must be passed at last! You did it! Congratuations!
We @proxy.token and KR community are all happy with it. 
Thank u, @thecryptodrive.

👍 thecryptodrive

properties (23)vote details (1)

1 reply

@thecryptodrive · Jan 3 '20

Hi @proxy.token I saw you voted some new witnesses which moved my rank out of the top20. I was surprised I didn’t get your vote since we are aligned in improving Steem with the shorter powerdown period and my recent efforts with the @sbdpotato project to try fix the SBD peg. I can’t influence changes if I am not in the top20 so I ask that you consider voting me as well.

properties (22)

@quantumdeveloper · Nov 2 '19

How can having more short term investors who try to squeeze as much value as they can out of the steem until they leave at the first sign of trouble(thus intensifying every price drop) in any way aid the value of steem?

properties (22)

@thecryptodrive · Nov 2 '19

That’s the reality of investing, same happens on BTC they dump when they see risk ahead and buy again when things are looking positive, the point is they keep creating liquidity and market activity, with a long pd cycle we will have stagnant market conditions and we will make steem less attractive for both long and short term investors.

properties (22)

@steem-ph · Nov 19 '19

That's not true.. Steem is liquid!

It's only Steem Power that's stake and anyone and everyone already has the option of entering and exiting Steem as they please?

Just like Bitcoin.. there is no need to stake if a user is just a trader.

properties (22)

@queeirisa · Nov 2 '19

$0.10

This is a great idea. So many of us here have thought about this once or more. It would bring in more investors because personally, I think 13 weeks is a very long time.

👍 thecryptodrive

properties (23)vote details (1)

@steem-ph · Nov 19 '19

But couldn't investors with less of an appetite to have their funds locked, just buy liquid Steem instead?

@thecryptodrive is in favor of eventually making it 7 days by the way, which would completely destroy the distinction between Steem and Steem Power.

properties (22)

@thecryptodrive · Nov 20 '19

$0.05

You are assuming, no I am not in favour of making it 7 days, it is what some people have suggested and I have just said we start with 4 weeks and see how that works out, clayop and others are keen for 7 days, I am cautious of that, but open to discussing it. Initially I was quite open to 7 days, but after reading comments here I now stand at 4 weeks being a nice balance.

👍 steem-ph, googlybot

properties (23)vote details (2)

1 reply

@sepracore · Nov 2 '19

$0.13

I am on board. Bottom line is this issue needs to be addressed because all new SMTs created will have the same power down time. If we already know we are going to reduce it from 13 weeks, we need to do it now as opposed to having a SMT Nightmare involving recreating SMTs and trying to airdrop new tokens, etc when we finally shorten the power down period.

👍 thecryptodrive

properties (23)vote details (1)

@thecryptodrive · Nov 2 '19

Yes agreed we need to make the change on the SMT HF.

properties (22)

@smooth · Nov 3 '19 (edited)

$2.06

I'm all for four weeks or even one week. I don't think it is demonstrated that these long lockups provide clear benefit _at the system level_. Yes there are benefits to an individual whose account gets hacked, but these come at a cost of adding dead weight (which then contributes to everyone losing 99%+ of value) to the system as a while. I'm not sure that is a good trade-off. 

If people want a longer lock-up for security purposes then perhaps the savings account feature which has never been used much can be repurposed to a voluntary longer safety-focused lock up.

There are also other approaches to reducing hacks such as building in 2FA with a mobile app. Lock-up is not the way to do this.

I'm sure there are people who will deny that Steem's misfeatures such as long lockups and high inflation are responsible for its price decline but frankly speaking I think that is 99% bullshit. Yes it is a bear market and yes crypto coin prices can have a mind of their own, but most of the reasons Steem has declined from a top 10 or maybe top 20 coin to barely hanging on in the top 100 are bad design and execution decision of our own making.

👍 z8teyb289qav9z, thecryptodrive, acidyo, ozchartart, lordbutterfly, whatsup, michealb, sepracore, clayop, liberosist, abdex9, cryptoastronaut, brianoflondon, crypto.piotr, hiddenblade, bitcoindelight, lextenebris

properties (23)vote details (17)

@clayop · Nov 3 '19

$0.70

I am for less than 4 weeks, like just one week. Long powerdown was coupled with high inflation rate for SP in order to disincentivize liquidating STEEM. For the current economic design, I think one week is a better choice.

👍 goldmatters, smooth, thecryptodrive, daudimitch, liberosist

properties (23)vote details (5)

@proxy.token · Nov 12 '19

@proxy.token supports your opinion, and thank you for your voice as many Korean users think, Mr.@clayop!

properties (22)

@thecryptodrive · Nov 3 '19

Thanks @clayop, please cast your vote on the proposal if you haven't already.

properties (22)

@crypto.piotr · Nov 19 '19

Agree with you @smooth

One week power down should be enough to still feel safe and secured (as a user). However somehow I like idea of 4 weeks power down much more than 1 or 13.

Yours
Piotr

properties (22)

@fsm-liquid · Nov 3 '19 (edited)

Why I was proposing the two staking pools is to cater to both short term and longer term investors.
Shorter term investors have more liquidity while still can participate in PoB and longer term investors who are willing to give up liquidity to show commitment by locking up have more power in governance. 
The silly thing about the current system imo is that 13 weeks is such a tall commitment especially on crypto space to participate in PoB, one of our "unique feature". On the other hand, people with minimal commitment voting on the future of the chain looks like recipe for disaster.
If it's deemed to be too complicated to implement I suppose it's not worth it after all.

Custom duration lockup period that works with SP would be cool but It will never be implemented because it will never be on top priority lol.

If this proposal passes as is I am actually more in favor for 1 week instead chickening on 4 weeks, maybe I am too paranoid about exchanges voting. As for security... I guess we need to be more careful with our keys.

properties (22)

@smooth · Nov 3 '19 (edited)

I think staking multiple pools, variable locking periods for security, etc. might be okay but I don't think they should be at the base layer. If we had even simple smart contracts like Bitcoin or perhaps even a tiny bit more powerful, then these sorts of features could be added as applications (and this is necessary for things like cross chain swaps, payment channels, etc.). That's obviously not going to happen in the next version but once we are done playing with SMTs, maybe we will start to realize that trying to satisfy every need at the base layer with hard forks needed for each and every change is impractical and foolish.

properties (22)

1 reply

@jankos55 · Nov 4 '19

I agree that reducing the lock up period to 4 weeks is going to be a positive change. 13 weeks seems to be a huge amount of time. If an uptrend starts and you want to unstake then at the current situation would be a waste of effort but while 4 weeks might be just right.

Posted using [Partiko Android](https://partiko.app/referral/jankos55)

properties (22)

@liberosist · Nov 3 '19

$0.22

Funny, I don't see anyone clamouring for lock-in periods with bitcoin. Or, really, any asset in the world. This stuff has been solved a long time ago with various methods of cold storage. I'd imagine hardware wallet support will be enough for most regular people. Not to mention, there's the account recovery solution and savings account. Even beyond those, there are better solutions. What more does one need, at the cost of negating all investor appeal? 

Many of these "unique features" of Steem have failed. It would be prudent to adopt what has proven to work in the crypto market. There's a $240 billion market of tokens with no lockup, how much for those with 13 week walls, again?

👍 smooth, dakeshi

properties (23)vote details (2)

@steem-ph · Nov 19 '19

Steem isn't locked up, it's liquid, just like Bitcoin.

It's only Steem Power that's locked and I think it makes sense to keep Steem and Steem Power separate and distinct.

👍 novacadian

properties (23)vote details (1)

@thecryptodrive · Nov 3 '19

Glad you are of the same mindset, please will you cast your vote on the proposal @
@liberosist

properties (22)

4 replies

@therealwolf · Nov 3 '19

$0.04

I'm using my active-key quite often, especially due to the fact that Steem is a cryptocurrency that is being used, in comparison to Bitcoin, which most people simply hodl. So yes, there is a completely different level of security need for Steem.

👍 smooth
👎 nosdos

properties (23)vote details (2)

2 replies

@svamiva · Nov 4 '19 (edited)

$0.20

>or even one week

So, you don't mind Bittrex staking its customers funds and using it to vote for witnesses, SPS and posts ?

👍 therealwolf

properties (23)vote details (1)

@therealwolf · Nov 4 '19

$0.07

Another good point. We're seeing it with EOS that exchanges are using customer funds for voting purposes.

👍 azircon, svamiva, ecoinstant
👎 nosdos

properties (23)vote details (4)

@thecryptodrive · Nov 3 '19

$0.04

Thanks @smooth, please cast your vote on the proposal if you haven't already.

👍 smooth, amreshchandra

properties (23)vote details (2)

@therealwolf · Nov 3 '19

$0.03

> There are also other approaches to reducing hacks such as building in 2FA with a mobile app. Lock-up is not the way to do this.

How exactly will this prevent any hacking from the blockchain level?

> If people want a longer lock-up for security purposes then perhaps the savings account feature which has never been used much can be repurposed to a voluntary longer safety-focused lock up.

The savings feature works only for STEEM, not STEEMPOWER. Which means, in order to be "save", someone had to forfeit any rewards earned through vesting inflation or possible voting-rewards.

---

I get the point of the lockup currently being a somewhat dis-incentive. But we're not fixing the system, by turning a screw without asking whether or not the screw is at the right place or if the screw breaks if we turn it more.

👍 smooth, neddie, novacadian
👎 nosdos

properties (23)vote details (4)

@smooth · Nov 3 '19 (edited)

> How exactly will this prevent any hacking from the blockchain level?

I'm not sure what you talking about. If you mean bugs in the blockchain code, lock ups don't prevent that either. They prevent people who get access to keys (for example by exploiting the web site) from performing transactions. 2FA would provide pretty much the same protection.

> The savings feature works only for STEEM, not STEEMPOWER

Yes, I was suggesting that it perhaps be changed to work in a more useful way since the existing feature is almost unused. Again, an experiment which failed, so we should move on and try something else.

> by turning a screw without asking whether or not the screw is at the right place or if the screw breaks if we turn it more.

I don't agree we are doing that. IMO we are thinking about what could break and concluding that nothing would. In part we are also looking around and seeing what several hundred other active blockchain projects are doing and seeing that they do just fine without months of lockup in the base layer.

properties (22)

11 replies

@stackin · Nov 2 '19

$0.13

4 weeks is a good idea in my opinion 😀

Posted using [Partiko iOS](https://partiko.app/referral/stackin)

👍 thecryptodrive, ackza, tonytrillions, eirik

properties (23)vote details (4)

@steem-ph · Nov 18 '19

What is the need of decreasing the Power Down period when investors can always invest in liquid Steem at any time if they don't want it locked for 13 weeks?

properties (22)

@steem-ua · Nov 2 '19

#### Hi @thecryptodrive!

Your post was upvoted by @steem-ua, new Steem dApp, using UserAuthority for algorithmic post curation!
Your **UA** account score is currently 8.400 which ranks you at **#17** across all Steem accounts.
Your rank has not changed in the last three days.

In our last Algorithmic Curation Round, consisting of 75 contributions, your post is ranked at **#3**. Congratulations! 
##### Evaluation of your UA score:

* Your follower network is great!
* The readers like your work!
* Try to work on user engagement: the more people that interact with you via the comments, the higher your UA score!


**Feel free to join our [@steem-ua Discord server](https://discord.gg/KpBNYGz)**

properties (22)

@steemitboard · Nov 3 '19

Congratulations @thecryptodrive! You have completed the following achievement on the Steem blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :

<table><tr><td><img src="https://steemitimages.com/60x60/http://steemitboard.com/img/notifications/topcommentedday.png"></td><td>Your post was the most commented on one day</td></tr>
</table>

<sub>_You can view [your badges on your Steem Board](https://steemitboard.com/@thecryptodrive) and compare to others on the [Steem Ranking](https://steemitboard.com/ranking/index.php?name=thecryptodrive)_</sub>
<sub>_If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word_ `STOP`</sub>


To support your work, I also upvoted your post!


###### [Vote for @Steemitboard as a witness](https://v2.steemconnect.com/sign/account-witness-vote?witness=steemitboard&approve=1) to get one more award and increased upvotes!

properties (22)

@tcpolymath · Nov 4 '19

$0.10

Supported. Powerdown time is not a security feature and shouldn't be treated as a security feature. If a security feature is needed, add a feature similar to the current Savings which applies to stake, and prevents it from being powered down for a period of time, preferably user-determined.

#sbi-skip

👍 thecryptodrive

properties (23)vote details (1)

@steem-ph · Nov 19 '19

I actually treat Steem Power as a security feature and its one of the reasons why I chose Steem over Bitcoin.

But I also support the idea of dynamic staking as suggested by @therealwolf and I wouldn't mind if the savings feature allowed longer hold periods.

Having said that, isn't it good to make the staking periods long, so that exchanges have no way of using the Steem deposited by their clients to vote for witnesses, proposals, or to word it another way, their OWN witnesses, and proposals?

<hr>

I also want to point out that it's obvious, at least to me, that Shorter Powerdown times would not encourage investors to buy Steem since they can already buy Steem with no Power Down times.

- It's called **Steem** (liquid).

properties (22)

@tcpolymath · Nov 19 '19

Using things that weren't designed as security features as if they were security features is pretty much the least secure thing you can do. This applies both to keeping Steem Power in order to keep from being hacked and making long power-down times to discourage exchanges from powering up. 

Powering up was not made for these purposes and there's no reason to believe it will behave well for these purposes just because it apparently has for you so far. This is like using a ziptie to lock your front door when keyed locks are readily available. Sure, nobody's come along and cut it *yet*.

properties (22)

1 reply

@thecryptodrive · Nov 5 '19

Perfect thanks for supporting, I agree users should set own security. But for purposes of this HF code is already complicated with SMT's so looking for easy win of just param change to 4 weeks to minimise risk of critical bugs in this HF.

properties (22)

@themarkymark · Nov 3 '19

I don't get why this is a proposal, you can add/remove votes on a proposal.  Why not use something like Dpoll?

👎 nanocheeze

properties (23)vote details (1)

@thecryptodrive · Nov 4 '19

Some stakeholders don't like using dpoll.

properties (22)

@themarkymark · Nov 3 '19

I'm ok with as low as 4 weeks but not lower.    There is certainly a lot of people who will not power up (or powers up less) due to the large risk of a 13-week power down.  On the other hand, it will encourage more powering down and dumping.  No one knows which will be more common.

With the changes to curation, we have already seen more powering up.

I'm not going to vote the silly proposal though.

👎 nanocheeze

properties (23)vote details (1)

@thecryptodrive · Nov 4 '19

Yeah i think 4 weeks is a sweet spot that covers all bases. Sure go ahead and vote, doesn't seem you have yet. If witnesses decide they want to set dpoll as the standard for future voting then can use that in future, this is already done so no sense in duplicating on dpoll.

properties (22)

@steem-ph · Nov 19 '19

I don't think SPS should be used for polling 😕

properties (22)

@therealwolf · Nov 22 '19 (edited)

$0.78

Update: I'm not exactly strongly in favor, but I find it acceptable, as long as we're working on a solution that brings a more dynamic solution in the near future.

---

~~I'm not in favour.~~

Reducing it without thinking further is a move without any hindsight on what Steem is supposed to be. I'm not arguing that 13 weeks power-down is a stupid thing to have at this point in time, but reducing it to 4 weeks is just as stupid.

The same goes for this post. You don't start a discussion by initiating a vote. You start a discussion by stating the problem. And the problem is that the 13 weeks powerdown doesn't provide enough incentives, but removing it would hurt Steem just as well, or at least remove an important safety feature.

It is **good** to have Steem that is locked away for some period of time. Both for the individual and for the currency. It gives people that have locked away their Steempower some kind of safety due to the prolonged time until the currency becomes liquid fully. And on the other hand, it gives the community leverage over big stakeholders, as well as stakeholders more time to think, instead of acting on emotional decisions.

So, to summarize my stance:

- I'm against this proposal or any proposal that simply wants to remove/reduce the powerdown period, without including future plans
- I'm in favour of a dynamic staking period of Steem (also called Steempower), with ever-increasing incentives (similar to what dan larimer wrote [here](https://medium.com/@bytemaster/blockchain-governance-proposal-470478e42686?source=---------5------------------)) If someone believes in STEEM and wants to lock it up for 2 or 5 years (because that's how long it takes for things to truly settle), why shouldn't we let them and give them a nice incentive on top of it?
- I'm also very strongly in favour of a discussion on the future of the Steem currency. Do we need SBD? Should we have staked STEEM instead of Steempower? Should rewards earned by the rewards-pool have a longer staking period? (e.g. 1 year) Fact is: this currency was developed by people who were smart but not perfect. Removing things we don't like, without questioning the core philosophy will result in a currency that's as wonky as the tower of Pisa.

👍 shaka, neoxian, svamiva, funnyman, gtg, bscrypto, joshman, waleedtee, danmaruschak, dakeshi, theb0red1, mattclarke, steevc
👎 posthero

properties (23)vote details (14)

@guiltyparties · Nov 3 '19

$0.25

Dynamic staking would be a good idea. An investor committing to a higher divestment period than minimally necessary is taking a risk and showing their commitment to Steem. They should receive some sort of a reward for this.

👍 therealwolf

properties (23)vote details (1)

@therealwolf · Nov 4 '19

$0.04

The current system forces everyone to stake it for 13 weeks or lose out on massive APR, which obviously results in frustration. I'm pretty sure that investors like @theycallmedan, who is thinking in years - not months - would stake it for 1-2 years or maybe even longer.

👍 azircon, trev03
👎 nosdos

properties (23)vote details (3)

@mattclarke · Nov 13 '19

I had hoped to launch an SMT with 260 week powerdown in 5 instalments (paid out annually), and nothing else liquid. Curation, author rewards and any initial airdrops and sales would all come powered up; so there'd be no opportunity to buy or sell the token for the first 12 months. 
All SMTs will be 13 weeks, though; which is a pity. 
Maybe next fork.

properties (22)

@smooth · Nov 3 '19

> Should we have staked STEEM instead of Steempower?

What is the difference?

properties (22)

@barton26 · Nov 3 '19

Less confusion for new users, I would imagine.  "Staked STEEM" is a lot more intuitive to a new user than a whole different name for the same thing (SP).

properties (22)

@therealwolf · Nov 3 '19

$0.03

Staked STEEM would be the same currency, similar to how STEEM behaves within the savings feature. Steempower aka vesting shares is a completely different currency.

👍 smooth
👎 nosdos

properties (23)vote details (2)

5 replies

@steem-net-ph · Nov 16 '19

Is this idea of @thecryptodrive getting any serious traction @therealwolf?

I don't know why @thecryptodrive offered this in such a rush and **NEVER** addressed your valid points and good ideas.

Either he's not thinking clear, not taking time to thoroughly address your comments @therealwolf or something else that I cannot imagine.

- Dynamic staking would be an improvement IMO but cutting the 13 week Power Down with an ax without keeping a good incentive to take for a long period of time is not.

properties (22)

@thecryptodrive · Nov 16 '19

I’ve addressed everything in my comments throughout this thread, the fact is for this HF we can’t do anything fancy other than a parameter change from 13 to 4 weeks. It is already a code heavy HF due to SMT’s being added and adding complexity can introduce critical bugs. 

I am only proposing a change to the length of period, fancy stuff can be done in a future HF. Steemit doesn’t have time to code anything fancy and there are many people who don’t want to delay the HF.

If we don’t take this opportunity to reduce the stake window likely we will have to wait another 6 months to a year for another HF.

Yes this proposal is getting traction, it is #1 on the proposals list with over 17 million SP behind it. That should be a good indicator of community sentiment towards it.

properties (22)

4 replies

@steem-net-ph · Nov 16 '19

Please address more people who are not thinking this through @therealwolf.

I personally believe we are on track for a 100x to 1,000x run starting a month or two before the next Bitcoin Halvening just like last time..

But axing the 13 week Power Down instead of initiating dynamic staking could throw a wrench in it and surrender the Steem blockchain to exchanges 😧

properties (22)

@thecryptodrive · Nov 16 '19

I wish we had a 100x bullrun, the issue is we can’t rely on past data, Steem was newer then. and was touted to be the facebook/reddit killer, the market is somewhat disillusioned about Steemit.com never really improving in 3 years, and it is now longer a novel concept, as much as i wish for such a run, I’m not naive enough to believe it. A 2x run is possible but maybe after jan 2020, things will slow now for end of year.

👍 lextenebris

properties (23)vote details (1)

2 replies

@thecryptodrive · Nov 2 '19

I’m not in favour of multiple pools, as I mentioned above Steem is a different animal to EOS, we provide a simple normie friendly gateway to crypto, multiple pools with different staking cycles make the cognitive load immense, also as I said traditional shareholders of stocks don’t normally have a lockup period and still vote for the good of the company and don’t need to be imprisoned in their stakeholding to be invested. 

A long lockup period shows weakness imo, even 4 weeks shows that we are scared our coin will dump so we have this 4 week buffer in place, it is however better than 13 weeks. 

I like your suggestion to also think around other economic aspects such as whether we should continue to have SBD, if it remains broken and unpegged it is an embarrassment and should likely be deprecated, we should discuss that as well as a separate topic.

👍 lextenebris

properties (23)vote details (1)

@therealwolf · Nov 2 '19

$0.04

> I’m not in favour of multiple pools, as I mentioned above Steem is a different animal to EOS, we provide a simple normie friendly gateway to crypto, multiple pools with different staking cycles make the cognitive load immense, also as I said traditional shareholders of stocks don’t normally have a lockup period and still vote for the good of the company and don’t need to be imprisoned in their stakeholding to be invested.

The vesting shares name and period were most likely created due to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lock-up_period

And I completely disagree with you there. It's the UIs job to make it as easy as possible, while the underlying tech can have more complexity to it. And having different staking periods, with different ROIs is actually very easy to understand.

> A long lockup period shows weakness imo, even 4 weeks shows that we are scared our coin will dump so we have this 4 week buffer in place, it is however better than 13 weeks.

No. It's just as bad. It's a different number, but the reasoning behind it is the same.

And again, you're forgetting the security aspect.

👍 z8teyb289qav9z, ozchartart
👎 nosdos

properties (23)vote details (3)

1 reply

@thecryptodrive · Nov 2 '19

Just to clarify would you be more in favour of a system where poweredup SP would have a shorter  vesting period than earned SP? That would be a middle ground but unfortunately will require more coding than simply changing a parameter.

properties (22)

@therealwolf · Nov 2 '19

$0.04

Multiple staking periods. And I'm not going to agree on middle grounds, the same way I didn't agree on your terms for the SPS funding origin.

👍 z8teyb289qav9z, ozchartart
👎 nosdos

properties (23)vote details (3)

@throwbackthurs · Nov 4 '19

$0.03

@thecryptodrive there are thousands of stolen keys floating around this blockchain so a periodic key change  should also be addressed. Please look into this as I have no real voice on this platform at the moment https://steemit.com/spam/@throwbackthurs/steemengineteam-leading-lambs-to-the-slaughter

👍 thecryptodrive

properties (23)vote details (1)

@thecryptodrive · Nov 5 '19

periodic key change is not a bad idea, like an annual password reset, also has risk of user locking himself out on key change :)

properties (22)

@timcliff · Nov 3 '19

$0.02

I’m in support, although not necessarily as part of the next hardfork. I’m not a hard no on that, but I’m concerned about adding complexity and risk to an already complex and risky hardfork (SMTs).

👍 thecryptodrive

properties (23)vote details (1)

@thecryptodrive · Nov 3 '19

Sure valid point, however it will just be a parameter change coupled with a cancellation of existing pd's so risk is low. We want to reduce number of HF's to not upset exchanges, imo next HF is still a good time, please vote for this proposal if you are in support.

👍 timcliff

properties (23)vote details (1)

@timcliff · Nov 3 '19

done

properties (22)

1 reply

@tombstone · Nov 5 '19

$0.10

I agree that a shorter staking period would likely make STEEM somewhat more attractive to investors. On the other hand, the security of having a long staking period should not be discounted, especially given that a) active keys are handled frequently, b) there is currently no hardware wallet support, and c) I'm not aware of good options for notification services to help warn users of an unexpected powerdown. Also, taking the experience of EOS into account, we should be concerned about the possibility of exchanges voting with user stake.

With these things in mind, currently I would caution against entertaining anything less than a 4-week powerdown. Even then, I would personally want to see a) some good notification services, and b) a powerdown schedule that is back-end heavy...e.g. 4 increasing weekly powerdowns of 10%, 20%, 30%, and 40%. That way users still get 100% in 4 weeks instead of the current 13 weeks, but the new risks are mitigated fairly substantially, and without adding much complexity, compared to 4 equal weekly powerdowns of 25%.

Lastly, I see the benefits of having some kind of dynamic staking scheme with variable APR, which could enable staking options both shorter and longer than 4 weeks (where longer staking periods would come with more voting power). But obviously this is more complicated and would take more time to come up with the most sensible (and simplest) possible scheme, and to code/test it. Not to mention, I would not favor enabling any staking periods shorter than 4 weeks without first having hardware support in place.

P.S. I get that items such as notifications and hardware support are not core level changes.

@smooth @therealwolf

👍 thecryptodrive, teofilex11, therealwolf

properties (23)vote details (3)

@thecryptodrive · Nov 5 '19

@tombstone thanks for your feedback.

I have just added PD notifs to the Ginabot notification service roadmap for you.

I think 4 weeks is perfectly balanced and no need to go lower, if we are worried about exchanges voting we can add an exchange blacklist/oracle that prevents known exchange accounts from voting. 

I iike the incremental pd idea over 4 weeks, starting low and increasing but I'm going for the simplest method with least code for this HF which is just a parameter change from 13 to 4 weeks, we can go fancy on next HF if needed.

I can facilitate trezor support, will require proposal approval of 20K USD to list steem on shapeshift, then Exodus wallet can integrate and finally, trezor can support steem with a bit of development cost.

properties (22)

@steem-ph · Nov 19 '19

@tombstone and @therealwolf both offered valid suggestions but you rejected all of them in favor of rushing a 4 week Powerdown in this hardfork.

If the issue is with SMTs, why not ask @steemit Inc. to add in a 4 week Power Down option for SMT's?

That might be better.

properties (22)

2 replies

@tradingideas · Nov 4 '19

4 weeks is still long. I prefer 1 week.
I think a long period of unstaking is not helpful to people who want to invest steem. And also Steem should introduce a way to burn the already issued coins.

properties (22)

@steem-ph · Nov 19 '19

There is always the option of buying liquid Steem.

And I see no reason why investors would be scared of a 13 week Power Down when they can just buy liquid Steem.

<hr>

I think this post confused some people into thinking, or forgetting, that liquid Steem is always available for people who don't want their $$ locked.

properties (22)

@thecryptodrive · Nov 4 '19

I don't think many people will vote for 1 week due to risk of losing all funds in a hack.

properties (22)

@treepi · Nov 4 '19

$0.10

1 week or a few days top would be optimal. 13 weeks serves no real purpose now and is a big discourager to powering up.

👍 thecryptodrive

properties (23)vote details (1)

@thecryptodrive · Nov 5 '19

agreed, we can't go less than 7 days cause you can powerdown and power up another account and vote twice. 4 weeks seems to be a prudent figure everyone can get behind, later we can reduce if necessary.

👍 treepi

properties (23)vote details (1)

@trieuvinhkim · Jan 29 '20

Supports your opinion

properties (22)

@vikisecrets · Nov 3 '19 (edited)

$0.04

4 weeks or even shorter is okay 👍 inflation has to be solved too, but this is another topic ;) (SBD and reward pool induced inflation)

👍 thecryptodrive

properties (23)vote details (1)

@witnessnews · Nov 2 '19

This post has been resteemed by @witnessnews.  

**Follow @witnessnews** to keep up with active witness updates.

properties (22)

@wongbraling · Nov 15 '19

Thats an interesting idea. But what will affect the price of steaks? because the time to draw 'deposit' steem power was made short which previously was 13 weeks to 4 weeks. Indeed, for a personal scale like me, it can be profitable. But what about the impact on the big scale steak? 
By the way, I aggree about reduce power down period to 4 weeks :)

properties (22)

@thecryptodrive · Nov 16 '19

I don't understand, i don't think the price of Steem/SP will change, just the staking period will change. The voting power and utility of the stake remains the same.

properties (22)

@yamgum · Nov 2 '19

$0.02

Excellent resteem it

👍 thecryptodrive

properties (23)vote details (1)

Help/Feedback

`author`	chesatochi
`permlink`	chesatochi-re-thecryptodrive-hf-proposal-vote-to-reduce-power-down-period-to-4-weeks-20191103t102938284z
`category`	steemdao
`json_metadata`	{"app":"partiko","client":"android"}
`created`	2019-11-03 10:29:39
`last_update`	2019-11-03 10:29:39
`depth`	1
`children`	0
`last_payout`	2019-11-10 10:29:39
`cashout_time`	1969-12-31 23:59:59
`total_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`curator_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`pending_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`promoted`	0.000 HBD
`body_length`	143
`author_reputation`	235,233,928,560,443
`root_title`	"HF Proposal: Vote to Reduce Power Down Period to 4 Weeks "
`beneficiaries`	`[]`
`max_accepted_payout`	1,000,000.000 HBD
`percent_hbd`	10,000
`post_id`	92,155,188
`net_rshares`	0

`author`	contrabourdon
`permlink`	contrabourdon-re-thecryptodrive-hf-proposal-vote-to-reduce-power-down-period-to-4-weeks-20191102t081106626z
`category`	steemdao
`json_metadata`	{"app":"partiko","client":"ios"}
`created`	2019-11-02 08:11:06
`last_update`	2019-11-02 08:11:06
`depth`	1
`children`	2
`last_payout`	2019-11-09 08:11:06
`cashout_time`	1969-12-31 23:59:59
`total_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`curator_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`pending_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`promoted`	0.000 HBD
`body_length`	122
`author_reputation`	225,734,789,508,456
`root_title`	"HF Proposal: Vote to Reduce Power Down Period to 4 Weeks "
`beneficiaries`	`[]`
`max_accepted_payout`	1,000,000.000 HBD
`percent_hbd`	10,000
`post_id`	92,125,554
`net_rshares`	37,895,690,061
`author_curate_reward`	""

voter	rshares	pct
googlybot	5,375,858,636	100%
crypto.piotr	6,012,618,494	1%
dustbunny	140,571,891,890	32.15%

`author`	demotruk
`permlink`	re-thecryptodrive-q0z8g6
`category`	steemdao
`json_metadata`	{"tags":["steemdao"],"app":"steempeak/2.0.6"}
`created`	2019-11-14 20:48:09
`last_update`	2019-11-14 20:48:09
`depth`	1
`children`	4
`last_payout`	2019-11-21 20:48:09
`cashout_time`	1969-12-31 23:59:59
`total_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`curator_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`pending_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`promoted`	0.000 HBD
`body_length`	239
`author_reputation`	279,453,298,745,864
`root_title`	"HF Proposal: Vote to Reduce Power Down Period to 4 Weeks "
`beneficiaries`	`[]`
`max_accepted_payout`	1,000,000.000 HBD
`percent_hbd`	10,000
`post_id`	92,505,169
`net_rshares`	0

voter	rshares	pct
gtg	158,043,034,017	1%
neoxian	763,154,532,204	14%
ssjsasha	948,283,085,533	100%
xplosive	25,475,457,411	100%
therealwolf	649,511,393,231	5%
d-zero	6,973,056,641	100%
practicalthought	25,095,718,104	100%
quantumdeveloper	4,496,107,357	100%

voter	rshares	pct
ozchartart	650,071,513,809	20%
xplosive	24,969,383,658	100%
z8teyb289qav9z	4,034,365,501,935	20%

voter	rshares	pct
smooth	0	0%
ozchartart	32,471,972,142	1%
takry	0	100%
z8teyb289qav9z	201,770,823,736	1%
nosdos	-19,179,820,228	-100%
quantumdeveloper	4,485,293,952	100%

voter	rshares	pct
joshman	164,046,695,804	9%
therealwolf	5,452,750,345,960	40%
neddie	2,704,315,749	100%

`author`	cryptoastronaut
`permlink`	cryptoastronaut-re-guiltyparties-q0dovd-20191231t023705206z
`category`	steemdao
`json_metadata`	{"app":"partiko","client":"android"}
`created`	2019-12-31 02:37:06
`last_update`	2019-12-31 02:37:06
`depth`	2
`children`	1
`last_payout`	2020-01-07 02:37:06
`cashout_time`	1969-12-31 23:59:59
`total_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`curator_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`pending_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`promoted`	0.000 HBD
`body_length`	300
`author_reputation`	4,077,453,227,139
`root_title`	"HF Proposal: Vote to Reduce Power Down Period to 4 Weeks "
`beneficiaries`	`[]`
`max_accepted_payout`	1,000,000.000 HBD
`percent_hbd`	10,000
`post_id`	93,883,188
`net_rshares`	0

`author`	jennyferandtony
`permlink`	q0g0ps
`category`	steemdao
`json_metadata`	{"app":"steemit/0.1"}
`created`	2019-11-04 11:48:30
`last_update`	2019-11-04 11:48:30
`depth`	1
`children`	1
`last_payout`	2019-11-11 11:48:30
`cashout_time`	1969-12-31 23:59:59
`total_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`curator_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`pending_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`promoted`	0.000 HBD
`body_length`	404
`author_reputation`	-6,289,528,366,841
`root_title`	"HF Proposal: Vote to Reduce Power Down Period to 4 Weeks "
`beneficiaries`	`[]`
`max_accepted_payout`	1,000,000.000 HBD
`percent_hbd`	10,000
`post_id`	92,188,405
`net_rshares`	0

`author`	kingscrown
`permlink`	q4nc5l
`category`	steemdao
`json_metadata`	{"app":"steemit/0.1"}
`created`	2020-01-25 04:51:21
`last_update`	2020-01-25 04:51:21
`depth`	1
`children`	0
`last_payout`	2020-02-01 04:51:21
`cashout_time`	1969-12-31 23:59:59
`total_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`curator_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`pending_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`promoted`	0.000 HBD
`body_length`	11
`author_reputation`	2,116,412,664,792,693
`root_title`	"HF Proposal: Vote to Reduce Power Down Period to 4 Weeks "
`beneficiaries`	`[]`
`max_accepted_payout`	1,000,000.000 HBD
`percent_hbd`	10,000
`post_id`	94,744,755
`net_rshares`	1,604,218
`author_curate_reward`	""

voter	weight	wgt%	rshares	pct	time
thecryptodrive	0 B		618,728,963,294	51%
ackza	0 B		39,667,351,611	100%

voter	rshares	pct
thecryptodrive	264,443,372,795	37%
azircon	55,626,144,773	1%
nosdos	-27,337,923,373	-100%

`author`	matt-a
`permlink`	re-thecryptodrive-q0wndr
`category`	steemdao
`json_metadata`	{"tags":["steemdao"],"app":"steempeak/2.0.6"}
`created`	2019-11-13 11:17:51
`last_update`	2019-11-13 11:18:39
`depth`	1
`children`	1
`last_payout`	2019-11-20 11:17:51
`cashout_time`	1969-12-31 23:59:59
`total_payout_value`	0.029 HBD
`curator_payout_value`	0.029 HBD
`pending_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`promoted`	0.000 HBD
`body_length`	693
`author_reputation`	34,621,295,577,150
`root_title`	"HF Proposal: Vote to Reduce Power Down Period to 4 Weeks "
`beneficiaries`	`[]`
`max_accepted_payout`	1,000,000.000 HBD
`percent_hbd`	10,000
`post_id`	92,461,175
`net_rshares`	339,900,779,096
`author_curate_reward`	""

`author`	mindtrap
`permlink`	q0bx5k
`category`	steemdao
`json_metadata`	{"app":"steemit/0.1"}
`created`	2019-11-02 06:39:21
`last_update`	2019-11-02 06:39:21
`depth`	1
`children`	7
`last_payout`	2019-11-09 06:39:21
`cashout_time`	1969-12-31 23:59:59
`total_payout_value`	0.057 HBD
`curator_payout_value`	0.057 HBD
`pending_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`promoted`	0.000 HBD
`body_length`	69
`author_reputation`	321,424,717,682,467
`root_title`	"HF Proposal: Vote to Reduce Power Down Period to 4 Weeks "
`beneficiaries`	`[]`
`max_accepted_payout`	1,000,000.000 HBD
`percent_hbd`	10,000
`post_id`	92,123,714
`net_rshares`	645,278,159,504
`author_curate_reward`	""

voter	weight	wgt%	rshares	pct	time
thecryptodrive	0 B		629,590,551,602	51%
eirik	0 B		15,687,607,902	100%

`author`	nextgen622
`permlink`	q0c3ev
`category`	steemdao
`json_metadata`	{"app":"steemit/0.1"}
`created`	2019-11-02 08:54:33
`last_update`	2019-11-02 08:54:33
`depth`	1
`children`	1
`last_payout`	2019-11-09 08:54:33
`cashout_time`	1969-12-31 23:59:59
`total_payout_value`	0.012 HBD
`curator_payout_value`	0.012 HBD
`pending_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`promoted`	0.000 HBD
`body_length`	26
`author_reputation`	457,147,688,118,588
`root_title`	"HF Proposal: Vote to Reduce Power Down Period to 4 Weeks "
`beneficiaries`	`[]`
`max_accepted_payout`	1,000,000.000 HBD
`percent_hbd`	10,000
`post_id`	92,126,274
`net_rshares`	142,326,822,234
`author_curate_reward`	""

voter	rshares	pct
blocktrades	5,801,213,283,206	4.95%
thecryptodrive	142,500,286,500	12%
ranchorelaxo	-40,495,543,081,309	-100%

`author`	onthewayout
`permlink`	q0f0pu
`category`	steemdao
`json_metadata`	{"links":["https://steemit.com/steem/@onthewayout/does-the-13-week-powerdown-period-prevent-investing-in-steem"],"app":"steemit/0.1"}
`created`	2019-11-03 22:49:06
`last_update`	2019-11-03 22:49:06
`depth`	1
`children`	6
`last_payout`	2019-11-10 22:49:06
`cashout_time`	1969-12-31 23:59:59
`total_payout_value`	0.022 HBD
`curator_payout_value`	0.021 HBD
`pending_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`promoted`	0.000 HBD
`body_length`	325
`author_reputation`	13,205,527,560,619
`root_title`	"HF Proposal: Vote to Reduce Power Down Period to 4 Weeks "
`beneficiaries`	`[]`
`max_accepted_payout`	1,000,000.000 HBD
`percent_hbd`	10,000
`post_id`	92,173,132
`net_rshares`	255,470,449,754
`author_curate_reward`	""

`author`	proxy.token
`permlink`	q0u2rd
`category`	steemdao
`json_metadata`	{"users":["proxy.token","thecrytodrive"],"app":"steemit/0.1"}
`created`	2019-11-12 01:57:18
`last_update`	2019-11-12 01:57:18
`depth`	1
`children`	6
`last_payout`	2019-11-19 01:57:18
`cashout_time`	1969-12-31 23:59:59
`total_payout_value`	0.100 HBD
`curator_payout_value`	0.100 HBD
`pending_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`promoted`	0.000 HBD
`body_length`	228
`author_reputation`	1,912,273,119,312
`root_title`	"HF Proposal: Vote to Reduce Power Down Period to 4 Weeks "
`beneficiaries`	`[]`
`max_accepted_payout`	1,000,000.000 HBD
`percent_hbd`	10,000
`post_id`	92,418,905
`net_rshares`	1,060,225,336,391
`author_curate_reward`	""

`author`	jack8831
`permlink`	q0yaqw
`category`	steemdao
`json_metadata`	{"users":["thecryptodrive"],"app":"steemit/0.1"}
`created`	2019-11-14 08:40:09
`last_update`	2019-11-14 08:40:33
`depth`	3
`children`	1
`last_payout`	2019-11-21 08:40:09
`cashout_time`	1969-12-31 23:59:59
`total_payout_value`	0.029 HBD
`curator_payout_value`	0.029 HBD
`pending_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`promoted`	0.000 HBD
`body_length`	106
`author_reputation`	182,276,949,970,503
`root_title`	"HF Proposal: Vote to Reduce Power Down Period to 4 Weeks "
`beneficiaries`	`[]`
`max_accepted_payout`	1,000,000.000 HBD
`percent_hbd`	10,000
`post_id`	92,488,159
`net_rshares`	343,732,298,963
`author_curate_reward`	""

voter	rshares	pct
clayop	120,886,176,678	30%
acidyo	933,338,898,470	10%
thecryptodrive	972,952,552,553	100%
liberosist	13,613,569,244	100%
ozchartart	808,956,044,853	25%
whatsup	285,742,618,369	29%
sepracore	151,633,009,673	100%
lextenebris	0	100%
bitcoindelight	0	100%
z8teyb289qav9z	5,020,379,670,798	25%
lordbutterfly	392,337,921,451	100%
hiddenblade	0	34%
crypto.piotr	0	1%
abdex9	4,216,023,911	100%
brianoflondon	0	100%
michealb	165,662,806,412	2%
cryptoastronaut	0	11%

voter	rshares	pct
smooth	1,101,187,804,356	5%
thecryptodrive	143,001,269,945	15%
liberosist	13,892,220,002	100%
goldmatters	1,964,949,353,835	100%
daudimitch	13,903,750,736	100%

`author`	jankos55
`permlink`	jankos55-re-smooth-q0d8cw-20191104t203205467z
`category`	steemdao
`json_metadata`	{"app":"partiko","client":"android"}
`created`	2019-11-04 20:32:06
`last_update`	2019-11-04 20:32:06
`depth`	2
`children`	0
`last_payout`	2019-11-11 20:32:06
`cashout_time`	1969-12-31 23:59:59
`total_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`curator_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`pending_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`promoted`	0.000 HBD
`body_length`	341
`author_reputation`	800,218,229,756
`root_title`	"HF Proposal: Vote to Reduce Power Down Period to 4 Weeks "
`beneficiaries`	`[]`
`max_accepted_payout`	1,000,000.000 HBD
`percent_hbd`	10,000
`post_id`	92,201,716
`net_rshares`	0

`author`	svamiva
`permlink`	q0ftor
`category`	steemdao
`json_metadata`	{"app":"steemit/0.1"}
`created`	2019-11-04 09:15:00
`last_update`	2019-11-04 09:17:39
`depth`	2
`children`	1
`last_payout`	2019-11-11 09:15:00
`cashout_time`	1969-12-31 23:59:59
`total_payout_value`	0.099 HBD
`curator_payout_value`	0.099 HBD
`pending_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`promoted`	0.000 HBD
`body_length`	125
`author_reputation`	9,635,062,598,275
`root_title`	"HF Proposal: Vote to Reduce Power Down Period to 4 Weeks "
`beneficiaries`	`[]`
`max_accepted_payout`	1,000,000.000 HBD
`percent_hbd`	10,000
`post_id`	92,185,400
`net_rshares`	1,049,273,919,283
`author_curate_reward`	""

voter	rshares	pct
svamiva	143,637,923,409	50%
ecoinstant	0	77%
azircon	290,108,390,868	5%
nosdos	-32,869,902,056	-100%

voter	rshares	pct
smooth	215,596,801,784	1%
novacadian	0	25%
neddie	2,759,471,130	100%
nosdos	-26,832,533,346	-100%

voter	rshares	pct
thecryptodrive	636,065,128,172	51%
ackza	40,476,942,256	100%
eirik	15,373,090,058	100%
tonytrillions	24,431,808,783	100%

`author`	tcpolymath
`permlink`	re-thecryptodrive-q0fqri
`category`	steemdao
`json_metadata`	{"tags":["steemdao"],"app":"steempeak/1.19.0"}
`created`	2019-11-04 08:11:51
`last_update`	2019-11-04 08:11:51
`depth`	1
`children`	4
`last_payout`	2019-11-11 08:11:51
`cashout_time`	1969-12-31 23:59:59
`total_payout_value`	0.050 HBD
`curator_payout_value`	0.050 HBD
`pending_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`promoted`	0.000 HBD
`body_length`	302
`author_reputation`	72,516,729,960,969
`root_title`	"HF Proposal: Vote to Reduce Power Down Period to 4 Weeks "
`beneficiaries`	`[]`
`max_accepted_payout`	1,000,000.000 HBD
`percent_hbd`	10,000
`post_id`	92,184,018
`net_rshares`	554,423,550,518
`author_curate_reward`	""

`author`	themarkymark
`permlink`	q0eoca
`category`	steemdao
`json_metadata`	{"app":"steemit/0.1"}
`created`	2019-11-03 18:21:45
`last_update`	2019-11-03 18:21:45
`depth`	1
`children`	1
`last_payout`	2019-11-10 18:21:45
`cashout_time`	1969-12-31 23:59:59
`total_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`curator_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`pending_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`promoted`	0.000 HBD
`body_length`	110
`author_reputation`	1,783,347,564,100,516
`root_title`	"HF Proposal: Vote to Reduce Power Down Period to 4 Weeks "
`beneficiaries`	`[]`
`max_accepted_payout`	1,000,000.000 HBD
`percent_hbd`	10,000
`post_id`	92,167,255
`net_rshares`	-3,583,535,345
`author_curate_reward`	""