You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: HF Proposal: Vote AGAINST Reducing Power Down Period to 4 Weeks
Understood! What is unclear is why the choice is binary?
Also the result of the outcome could be questionable as one proposal is older than other and people feel the burnout. I do, as I get the feeling of lot of “pushing agenda”.
The choice is binary at this time because the developers have said they are considering the change to 4 weeks it is a simple paramater change. None of the other ideas discussed are in that category.
They can be discussed further and potentially polled later.
You are right, it isn't 100% reliable. It is also non-binding. People (developers, witnesses, and stakeholders) will have to use some judgment in interpreting the results.
(Reply was posted by @smooth; I used the wrong window. All rewards on this comment will be burned by the @burnpost bot)
Great minds...
The FOR proposal doesn’t reflect true participation because those who are against would not have voted in which case there is no way of knowing if they were neutral or against or simply not engaged. I was asked to put this proposal together to capture more data.
@joshman this covers your question, also for this HF we don’t have the luxury of complex solutions other than a simple number tweak from 13 to 4, to reduce technical overhead. So our only options until another HF maybe a year away is either 13 or 4.
So I'll vote for not throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks. Thanks.
I have posed this question elsewhere:
What sort of speculation in steem will a four week powerdown enable that a thirteen week will not? Furthermore, how will anything beyond an instantaneous powerdown enable any speculation or liquidity at all?
Josh, I am glad you ask this question. This discussion is so convoluted that I can't wrap my head around it. But I will try and ask the right questions again. I appreciate that there are lot of educated people here with substantial knowledge of not only blockchain, but general knowledge about how capital markets function. So I am confused out of respect, and I am not mocking.
I am hearing the word "speculation" a lot. I am assuming people are using the word in a sense of financial terminology. As far as I know it is defined as such: investment in stocks, property, or other ventures in the hope of gain but with the risk of loss
I am very confused, do we want speculators in steem or we do not? I do not know how many of you actually speculate or did any kind of speculation in their professional life, but I do speculation for a living, and have done it all my life. To me it makes no difference what so ever, whether steem has a 4 week PD or a 13 week PD. Makes absolutely no difference at all.
Also I don't know if you are familiar with Venture Capital lock down period, Company stock purchase lock down period, Employee stock option lock down period, or standard IPO lock down period. All these things I mentioned are considered standard financial instruments, and they all have 3 months to 1+ year lock down on cumulative capital measured in hundreds of million USD to several billion USD. Just for reference Steem's market cap in under 60 million USD. What is hell are we talking about here?! That is less than the daily trading volume at Goldman Sachs product desk for Sigma X(which is 69 million USD average, Dec 2019 data). Seriously why this is even a discussion topic?
https://www.goldmansachs.com/what-we-do/securities/gset/equities/liquidity-access/sigma-x-us-monthly.pdf
You're not here to provide market liquidity, and I would argue that most people that bother to power up for any time frame are not either. They are expecting that there will be a meaningful change in sell side liquidity should the lock down period decrease by that margin. While I'm certain it may add something to the liquidity, I don't think it will be meaningful unless the lock down period is zero (which we know is untenable).
What about not burning steem and actually voting authors to add liquidity? I'm not sure if the act of burning supply is compatible with trying to increase liquidity. I suspect some people here are trying to have their cake and eat it to.
Agree on your first point. They expect liquidity will increase but I don’t think it will be significant either.
Not sure on the second. Recently you tried to find posts to push on trending.... but I say you were only marginally successful? ;) it’s mostly because they don’t exist
I agree whole heartedly that the liquidity of exceptional posts (for lack of a better term) has decreased to a slow trickle. But that is on us for not recognizing or rewarding them when they have come in the past (mostly for selfish reward curve reasons). On top of that, the only way to raise a bar, is to set one in the first place. To have something to point to in order to show potential authors, if you can do better than this, you will displace this. That means rewarding the best the platform has to offer at a given time (within reason), not waiting for unicorns trying to win the lottery. When a showcase exists, I now have the ability to actually recruit authors who are able to do a better job to get themselves into the showcase. When authors are consistently outcompeted by 'token preservation posts' and esoteric steem-centric posts, it's demoralizing. While I have no problem with technical solutions, it can't come at the cost of solutions that drive value in terms of IP on the platform.
Because they(Steemit) believe this change to 4-week power down by itself is simple enough to be implemented in the next SMTs hardfork. Anything more will require its own discussion, development, and hardfork.
Original proposal received a lot of support, but now many expressing opposing views. That’s why I think they want to know if this is really what majority stakeholders/community want.
This is my understanding.
Alright... Alright!!
I will vote! Geez! :) You people!
No body voted for that thing yet! Great I will be the first to vote!
There are votes but they don't show up until the proposal goes live, which I think was set for January 25. Check back in several hours.
(Reply was posted by @smooth; I used the wrong window. All rewards on this comment will be burned by the @burnpost bot)
No, don’t. Vote for FOR, not AGAINST. :)
Why would you want your funds hold hostage for 13 weeks. I think 4 week pd is better.
Because I want to burn my money :)
They don´t understand DAOs, the decision was already made! Those people uncomfortable with 13 Weeks already exited and have no Power left to back their claim. It is a pseudo decision --> biased towards people comfortable with holding. If those proposals are designed to please bag holders...fine. If we really want to leverage the "wisdom of the crowd" (if there is any), we should read some articles by Buterin, Merkle and other folks about what a DAO actually is. The inner German Wall was designed to hold people in the country but at the same time was the biggest incentive for people to leave at every opportunity. On the other hand VC funds have lock-ups of 10 years - industry standard...There is a point in having long investor lockups... However, I wish the whales and the community the best luck to make the right decision. Probably not everything should be polled, and if there is a poll it should be without those statistical-text-book flaws. A poll like this should not be accepted because it is potentially harmfull.