Powering down Hive takes 13 weeks currently, what do you think is the ideal time frame?
This discussion has come up a lot in the past, and I am curious what people think.
Powering down Hive takes 13 weeks currently, what do you think is the ideal time frame?
This discussion has come up a lot in the past, and I am curious what people think.
A serious money is liquid and fungible. Intentional crippling retards the utility of a money, and this holds Hive back. The governance utility of tokens is nominal to preclude the dumping the powerdown delay is intended to prevent, while the curation utility creates incentive to stake. However, that degrades curation and the actual real power of social media significantly, which is one of the triad of disabilities that has hamstrung Hive and prevented it's achieving market dominance, the others being unrestrained taxation and censorship, and centralization of stake in an oligarchy in a plutocratic governance mechanism.
Social media has grown to become the largest financial sector in the global market today, which Hive has features that should allow it to utterly dominate that market. These three disabilities so hamstring it that instead of market dominance it's practically insignificant. Particularly the pure plutocratic governance mechanism renders the platform subject to Steemrolling, which forces the oligarchy to prevent growth and moon because that would attract outside capital to whom Hive's entire market cap is lunch money. Sun Yuchen demonstrated even a minor player could simply take their income streams and leave them bereft of the value of their investment. 1a1v and oracles, as @ned suggested, eliminates this vulnerability, and the total opposition to that evolution and the increase in value (and necessary competence to manage wealth) that would enable is why he capitulated and sold out.
Hive is so crippled we are losing the crypto paralympics, rather than dominating the social media market globally. Competent financial management would require preventing mere investment cash from capturing governance, ending the taxation free for all and enabling creators to benefit from social support for their content, and decentralizing the economy of Hive - all of which the extant oligarchy sees as threats to their personal fortunes. Bird in hand prevents any interest in the flock in the bushes.
Thanks!
Lmao
Best line.
Thank you for your witness vote!
Have a !BEER on me!
To Opt-Out of my witness beer program just comment STOP below
View or trade
BEER.Hey @enforcer48, here is a little bit of
BEERfrom @isnochys for you. Enjoy it!Did you know that <a href='https://dcity.io/cityyou can use BEER at dCity game to buy cards to rule the world.
Thank you for your witness vote!
Have a !BEER on me!
To Opt-Out of my witness beer program just comment STOP below
View or trade
BEER.Hey @enforcer48, here is a little bit of
BEERfrom @isnochys for you. Enjoy it!Learn how to earn FREE BEER each day by staking your
BEER.Thank you for your witness vote!
Have a !BEER on me!
To Opt-Out of my witness beer program just comment STOP below
View or trade
BEER.Hey @enforcer48, here is a little bit of
BEERfrom @isnochys for you. Enjoy it!We love your support by voting @detlev.witness on HIVE .
Thank you for your witness vote!
Have a !BEER on me!
To Opt-Out of my witness beer program just comment STOP below
View or trade
BEER.Hey @enforcer48, here is a little bit of
BEERfrom @isnochys for you. Enjoy it!Learn how to earn FREE BEER each day by staking your
BEER.wait thats not the goal?
Staking isn't mandatory, and you can choose to retain liquidity. The token designed for exchange is HBD, which has a 3-day power-down from savings as a security measure more than anything else but can be kept liquid as well.
The real problems are spam and onboarding, not tokenomics.
Resource credits limit spam, and flags eradicate incentives to spam, as they were intended. Onboarding wasn't a problem in 2017, but the unrestrained taxation and resulting censorship that dislodged >1m users since then is the main impediment to onboarding today. Since those problems remain, onboarding will continue to be inadequate.
No one knows spam better than Marky. However, using tools designed to prevent crimes to encourage pro-social actions is dysfunctional from the get go, and will never work. Punitive taxation and elimination of economic rewards is nominal to prevent spam, scams, and plagiarism, but when applied to attain other purposes just censors and drives away new users, and this is what has happened since 2017 on Hive.
RC limits spam, but does not prevent it.
Flags do not eradicate incentives to spam, they are a tool that can limit the effectiveness of spam.
Can you clarify what you mean by "taxation" and "censorship"?
I know of no non-economic incentives for commercial spam. Personally directed spam, such as during a dispute between parties may have other incentives, such as deep and abiding butthurt. There may be other mechanisms potential to reduce such non-economically motivated spam, but I submit that is a tiny fraction of spam and in the vast majority of cases commercial spam that draws flags is quickly and completely dissuaded by the ability of flaggers to completely eliminate any rewards from spam ops.
Just as DV's censor spammers, they censor everyone else that is flagged, too. DV's are taxes because they return rewards to the pool that had been directed to creators exactly as taxes are taken out of your paycheck and returned to the government before you receive it. On Hive everyone with stake can tax anyone to the limit of their stake. Such economic disincentives are a very common mechanism that oppressive governments employ to censor speech, such as fines, and seizing bank accounts, and debanking people that is becoming more and more prevalent. When they are tied to specific speech they often work very well to silence that speech, on Hive and elsewhere. Canada seized bank accounts of people that donated to honking truckers in the attempt to end the Freedom Convoy there, and as I recall that did end it.
Trump has promised John Deere, for example, that if they move their factories to Mexico, they will pay a 200% import duty for their products sold in the USA. Since such taxation is a strong disincentive to do business in ways that are so punitively taxed, when many creators on Hive have been taxed 100% of their earnings, they are similarly discouraged from publishing on Hive. I have provided some such punitively taxed users 5% of my author rewards for years in order to provide them some economic return for their posts that couldn't be taxed to nothing. I have just learned about @commentrewarder, which enables authors to share their author rewards with commenters they upvote on their blogs, which also provides non-taxable income, and am trying that out.
Downvotes are not taxes. Taxes take what is yours. Downvotes adjust the potential payout, which is not yours until it actually pays out. This can be abused, but calling it a "tax" does not make sense.
Just like your rewards, your paycheck isn't yours until you cash it, and it's adjusted through taxation. Just like taxes, DV's return your money to the rewards pool from whence it came, even though people assigned it to you with their upvotes, just like employers assign you pay for your efforts. Taxes and DV's operate identically, only on Hive everyone can tax you.
The only difference is pedantry.
RC doesn't even remotely limit spam. The largest abusers here have less than 1000 HP and can spam endlessly with little impact on their RC.
The RC system is completely broken and only affects new users usually doing legitimate transactions.
I've brought up a few times about revamping the RC system so it actually does something having scaling costs for operations. So if a single user posts 20 comments, they are fine, but it starts getting incrementally more expensive. This way users who spam 1000 comments a day can't do with impunity. You always have the make another account syndrome though, but RC currently doesn't do jack for any use case it was intended for. With RC delegation it is even easier to get around.
Bpcvoter just started another spam campaign with his various numbered accounts. He can comment his accusations without any issue, but new accounts can't always reply to every comment on their intro posts. The formula needs fixing.
Yup
13 weeks seems like a fair number. People like me who are committed to Hive would, of course, love a smaller number so we could swing trade easier, but that would seemingly open the door to abuse by people not so committed to Hive—or if not abuse, just taking the money and running. So I have no problem with 13.
It might be interesting to introduce a faster power-down in exchange for 5-10%, as @bozz and @steevc suggest; I'd support that.
I don't hate 13 weeks either, but I know it turns a lot of people off who might otherwise dump a lot of money into the platform.
I never cared much, 13 weeks always seemed an okayish number to me. Imo, steem/hive always had more serious problems and power down discussion always felt like a distraction. A burn for instant power downs would be cool though 😎
Wasn't it 2 years at the start? I'm happy enough with 13 weeks as it gives us some stability. If there were to be quicker options then they should have a cost with a percentage going to the Hive fund. If people want a quick payout from post rewards then there are other options for that.
Eso que poder
I like 13 weeks. It's just enough
I've been saying for a while I think it should be something like 4 weeks, but then if you want to withdraw quicker like 1 week you have to pay a 5% or 10% fee that gets burned automatically or something like that.
I don't see how the current power-down timeframe is a problem. Staking should be a serious decision. It includes governance power, vating power, and so forth. Reducing liquidity means giving up on playing the crypto-bro trading game in exchange for ownership of the chain, and should be a major choice. Do you want skin in the game or not?
The old 2-year process was too long, and had a chilling effect on willingness to stake. Imagine being trapped in STEEM for 2 years after the Justin Sun coup.
4 weeks is probably far too short, unless perhaps it were instead 4 weeks of daily pwerdowns instead of 4 chunks.
13 weeks, or 3 months, is quick enough to liquidate savings at a steady rate while ensuring at least some time horizon for decisions.
Those who want liquidity can choose 50/50 payouts on posts and not stake.
I vote 52 weeks for fun. The current one should be the best option we have and I think anything sooner than 2 months are vulnerable to gamification.
I voted 8 week but really it should be 5 Weeks, only because of the 30 day account recovery window though. If we aren't to bothered about the powerdown time being a method to protect funds from being raided in the event of a hack then it should be 2 weeks.
It can't be instant, 3 days or 1 week because of the interactions with reward pools, voting etc.
I'm a hive witness supporting the blockchain please consider voting for me.
Ideally it would be 4 weeks or 8 weeks with instant powerdown tied to a % burn (questionable safety).
13 weeks made sense when nobody was offering APR. Now everyone and their grandma offers APR and most dont even require staking. TVL is seen as having value in itself. Simply holding money in the system.
If there aren't serious reasons for not lowering it so much (other than a hacker being able to take more of the HP from inactive stakeholders), I'd go for 4 weeks. It seems kind of a standard in crypto.