RE: HF Proposal: Vote to Reduce Power Down Period to 4 Weeks
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.
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.
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.
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.
I don't mind the reduction of power-down if it comes with a dynamic model and increased the incentive to lock it up longer.
The only thing that failed is a model with a fixed time of 3 days, which is just not dynamic enough. Imagine you could set whatever time you want, maybe with a hard-cap of 1 year or so. You could go as low as 1 hour or 3 hours, if you're a business who is doing some kind of escrow job or maybe 7 days, depending on your needs.
You mean what they're not doing. Am I that crazy for thinking that a dynamic lockup with higher APR will incentivize more people to lock-up their Steem? Who else got that kind of a system? Pretty much no other blockchain AFAIK.
I'd go for that. I'm here for the long haul and would readily lock in my SP for 5 years for a solid boost to vote weight and resource credits.
Ooooh, I quite like where this idea is going.
First time I bought and powered up it was for 104 weeks.
One obvious compromise, @therealwolf, might be to weight the share of ones inflationary reward with how many weeks one has chosen to lock down their stake with a range of one week to one year. This request for a shorter lock down request is obviously with investor types in mind. The only concrete reason given is that everyone else is doing it. My compromise would be for the benifit of HODLers like myself. 😎
Allow me to allow the math majors to figure out what the increase in inflation rewards would be as weeks of the lock down setting is increased on ones stake.
As the inflation rate is slowly decreasing, the benefit of the change would eventually begin to favor the investor types more over time. This makes sense as the token would be slowly decreasing in production at the same time.