i don't think its a good idea. locked up SP should be able to vote the rest not.
What was your objective for this proposal?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
i don't think its a good idea. locked up SP should be able to vote the rest not.
What was your objective for this proposal?
Your question has largely been addressed in the comments above, but the basic idea would be to add additional incentive to staying vested. If users are cashing out, then that portion of their funds is on it's way out, and would no longer receive the benefits/rewards to being vested.
This is exactly what we don't want. We want people who want in to get in, and people who want out to get out. Adding (unnecessary) friction to either ultimately reduces the value of the platform.
With a 2 year power down, I totally agree. With 90 days though I'm less sure. I see your point though.
@smooth wrote:
Well you'll remember I was one of if not the first at Bitcointalk who was arguing that the speculators couldn't invest and afair you sort of downplayed it or disagreed. So now it is nice for me to see you trumpeting my points here as your own.
You want speculators to be able to get in and out. Yes. But you don't know the other part of my design which deviates from what you just wrote.
So Steem will drop the power down to 3 months, a huge cash out will occur potentially crashing the price further or enabling those who want out to get bought out at good prices by eager fools, whilst the drop from 2 years to 3 months destroys another critically important design point which I am not going to share publicly. But you have a hint in my other comment on this page.
I'm not referencing speculators necessarily with my comments and I noted that elsewhere. If someone is a user or a long term investor and has had a change of heart (even after five years) and no longer supports the platform, I see no value in keeping them around longer just to prop up the market.
As someone else noted in the comments, many if not most speculators don't want to lock up their funds at all and three months is still too long. I don't really view the reduction in lock time as appealing to speculators, I view it as reducing the cost of entry for those who do intend to remain involved and invested indefinitely but aren't comfortable with a two year (one year average) exit lag.
@smooth wrote:
I agree. And you are getting closer to my (somewhat secretive) point of the drop from 2 years to 3 months being contemplated is IMO the worst possible compromise. We'll see...
Yes I see. I guess the more i think about this the more I agree with you sentiment.