Some variation of this sounds much better to me than the proposal to simply change the powerdown time from 13 weeks to 4 weeks.
I don't believe a simple change to 4 weeks would have much impact, because even four weeks would be too long for anyone who wants to speculate on a volatile market situation (in crypto these opportunities often only last for days or even just a couple of hours).
An instant powerdown would be the only option that I think would satisfy the need for those who want to free up funds to speculate. I agree there should be a fee associated with instant powerdowns. And I think your idea to pay that fee to those who stay powered up, as an incentive for them to continue to hold, also makes a lot o sense.
Yea, it has to be instant, a month vs. 13 weeks does not matter much imo. I still prefer 13 weeks as I want commitment and still a way out for free. One of the main reasons I like this approach is the fact the market is so immature (it will be for some time imo). This proposes putting the "taxes" (regret the word for obv reasons now) in a pool that drip feeds out slowly at 2% of the entire pool paid daily. So, if I put on my game hat, I take a look at this market, and I really see people jumping around. I think with the amount of fun/emotional money, we could build a really big pay out pool during extreme bull runs, and that can help support long term holders during more bearish times.
I agree.
Trickle up economics doesn't work
Why would there be fees at all??? This whole idea doesn't make any sense. Hive is supposed to be a feeless platform, and now there's talk about powerdown taxes and penalties? So you want to tell users to buy Hive, power it up, then if they want their money back, they lose a portion of it (not to mention the loss in a market dip).
And about that "idea to pay that fee to those who stay powered up", why would someone's stake/funds be redistributed to others? Is Hive turning socialist?Don't want to get into a political discussion, but I can see that nasty socialism crawling into America, and I definitely don't want that bullshit on Hive.
lol. Exaggerate much?
Hive is supposed to be what ever the investors decide it should be.
They power it down normally and dont lose anything. This is simply an opt in option.
In DEFI and in the rest of the crypto market that pays attention to trends, "taxes" on actions are a commonplace thing. They benefit everyone.
Hive is lagging so far behind current trends that i can understand people like you being shocked by it.
What are you talking about? 😄
The funds would be redistributed to others in order to powerdown instantly.
That is an opt in thing. Its a cost of utilizing a feature. No one is forced to do it.
And that socialism analogy you made is absurd. Socialism has a compulsory aspect to it. This is entirely opt in.
Adding a new feature to the platform that gives MORE freedom to investors. More options to do with their funds what they want you are calling socialism.
Really?
In order to have instant power-downs + decentralized governance, you need a fee to exit. That is pretty much it. If there is no penalty for getting out early, exchange attacks would be very easy.
So the exit fee is first and foremost a security measure that enables the ability to power down instantly. Now the next question is, what to do with that exit fee? We could burn it, but I think the better idea is to give it back to those that stayed powered up, to reward the ones most loyal to the network. You give short term speculators a way into the Hive ecosystem where. Who knows what happens when you get whales with big egos splashing around Hive upvotes? It could be an entertaining event. And when the short term speculators have had their fun and move on, the long term investors are rewarded.
It's not socialism it is trickle up economics, neo liberalism. Don't confuse the two.
and why a fee is needed? No instant power down but 2 power up times would be pretty much the same, but more dynamic. What with wallet recovery?
If we chose taxes, will it be announced in time?
The fee for instant powerdown would discourage exchanges from powering up their customer's funds without their permission.
On the security side, there's been discussion in mattermost for various mitigation techniques. One would be an option to lock one's account against immediate powerdowns. If you then wanted to unlock it and allow instant powerdowns again, there would be a delay before it's allowed. This could be the default for regular users, and speculative traders who want to be able to access their funds quickly via instant powerdown could forego the initial lock against powerdowns.
Any change like this would have to be done in a future hardfork, it's too late to consider including anything like this in HF25, IMO.
Thanks, good to know.
As long there a ways to power up and down without a fee I would support it.
Also, I would prefer an opt-in for wallets first, as you mention. Maybe with a simple multi-sig solution, that could be easily implemented in front ends.
Then I would agree, it is a good idea.
My concern would be if we tax everything for long term holders, we kill the ability for new holders to be part of hive. Because I think hive is first a chain for web3, not defi (on the main chain).
Could a powerdown be bound to the equivalent of an "authenticator" app? would be nice to have an additional opt-in layer of security for key functions.
It's already possible to do multisig and one of the keys could be tied to an app or authenticator device. That requires a bunch of design and development which of course doesn't exist. However, in the current structure you can't tie keys to particular operations, so all active key operations would need to be similarly protected, not just power downs (imagine confirming transfers, etc. via your mobile device). This seems mostly fine to me.
Can we have a proposal made by you or Dan with these options presented and voted on by the community? Something similar to what i did.
Or do you feel there is enough witness support for this to pass without a formal community input? (lets call it a referendum)
By active voting stake, my guess is there is enough to pass 13 week + instant powerdown with fee, at the moment. But it seems like a discussion of the exact mechanics is still going on, and there's no rush, as there's at least a few months to the next HF, even if we try to get out the next one out quicker.
Thats understandable. My fear is that we currently dont have a principle set up on how to deal with change recommendations. If you caught my DM you probably saw what im referring to exactly.
When it comes to change implementation its really important to structure the discussions otherwise it "goes all over the place", people get exhausted, burned out, time is wasted and emotions fly high and people can get angry.
Time lock could work. That is my biggest opposition to instant powerdown is the risk to security and it rendering the whole account recovery process redundant (as there is no funds to recover).
i think that is not a change that can be done just like that, so it would probably need a HF and we would get enough time until the hf is implemented.
If the trend continues, that would be in 6+ months.
just my noob take on it, so :)
That's true. That's why i made a proposal :)
Or that fee should be just burned !
The pool could be called a Dividend Pool