Consider the case of an author who has been a successful part of this platform for a year or more. All that time accumulating SP. Do you think it is unreasonable at some point for such an author to say "I have enough of a concentrated investment in this system by now, I do not need more" and start powering down? That does NOT mean being "out". Should such an author (who is not only be a major participant and contributor of "work" but also a major investor) be stripped of influence and told that their input is not wanted simply because they don't want their stake to grow forever? I don't think so.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
this. At the end of the day, if the system cannot endure a reasonable level of powerdown without the price tanking, then it simply doesn't work.
I think it is balanced when they have the option to power down a % of stake as was also suggested.
Perhaps a good compromise to this is the interest SP generates?
When whales are powering down, which I do understand is necessary, they have their voting rights, but the 90% of newly mined SP is distributed amongst those who are not. Would give increased rate of SP gain to those who are not powering down and present a solution as a result
Powering down a percentage of stake does not mathematically change the cost of the exit fee. This is an illusion. Whether you power down 100% of your stake for a month or 10% of your stake for 10 months, it works out exactly the same. A penalty equivalent to one year of influence and rewards is charged for any stake that is powered down under this proposal.
I'm not saying strip of ALL influence, but a higher percentage and no "interest" beyond curation/authorship could be a middle ground.
That being said, the solution is not targeting these type of low impact players...