Not sure if this is a good idea or if it would be open to gamification, but I'm throwing it out there for feedback/consideration:
If we are going to significantly reduce the SP holding time, we may want to exclude SP that is part of a power down from participating in curation/rewards.
Pretty sure Ned suggested this months back. It'll definitely be an incentive to hold SP. There should be plenty more of those - there should be a solid incentive to not power down. And yes, partial power downs should be possible, of course.
Any time you add an incentive to hold something you add a discouragement to buy it. That is largely what this entire proposal is about. By adding a lot of restrictions and demands on how investors are "supposed" to behave, it tells others they are not wanted. I prefer a "big tent" where anyone who wants to invest their capital in this system is welcome and not (more than security requirements dictate) disadvantaged because their particular approach to investing might differ from another person's approach.
IMHO, I feel all friction should be removed for investors, and question making Steem Power liquid. (Though of course that would be a long term goal, for the short term 3 months sounds fine.) 9.5% is a low enough inflation rate to not require a hard lock in period, which will probably psychologically discourage investment much greater than that amount.
Even so, there should be incentive to hold Steem Power, and it could be driven by gamification of the platform. Other cryptocurrencies have thrived without any holding period, while free to play games have thrived through gamification.
Of course, a balance needs to be found between the two...
Makes sense.
What's the benefit? Why complicate it when the SP will be off the market in a week anyway?
not SP from a weekly portion... all SP.
Oh, that would be brutal. I don't think anyone would want to go for that idea.
It would basically be a change to be either "invested" or "cashing out". If you wanted to cash out 20% of your funds, it would be removed from your voting power and dispersed over 3 months. The other 80% that was not being withdrawn would still be vested and count towards your voting + curation rewards.
Basically users would need to decide if their money is in or out.
But what if I want to cash out 20% in three weeks? A full powerdown under the proposal would accomplish that, yet I'd be penalized 100% during that time. IMO, this becomes very over-complicated and cumbersome. There seems no real value to it. Just let people vote on what is in their account, just like you would with votes on stocks. You either have them or you don't. If you sell them, it's done.
I do not see a reason to give a voting power to someone, who are going to leave a platform.
Powering down doesn't mean someone is leaving the platform. While it's possible (over 2 years!), it only necessarily means that they may be selling a portion of their holdings. I'm powering down because I am experimenting with it. I power up as soon as I record my numbers. I've bought Steem and powered it up. So I should be penalized the entire portion if I want to cash some out? Wouldn't that be like telling a stockholder that they no longer have voting rights on 100% of their stock because they're selling 1%?
What you just described in your other comment of cashing out 100% to get 20% in 3 weeks is what this would be trying to discourage.
Yeah, I understand. And it kinda makes sense. But I consider the imposition a far greater concern than the market factor. But I am very active in promoting other people's posts too, so maybe that's a factor in my perspective. The other, of course, is just what seems an overbearing and disproportionate penalty.
It's just an incentive to stay powered up. Curating/Rewards are supposed to be proportional to your vest in the site. If you are powering down, then you are removing those SP from vests. Perhaps this would encourage people to only power down some of their SP rather than all?
Not everyone has that option. And sometimes folks just power down to keep options open. I've been doing it for a few weeks now, simply to try to understand how it works better (Ask 5 people and get 7 opinions). I power back up immediately. And it's a good way to maintain being able to pull a portion out at any time, then just power up what's left. IMO, there should be no penalty simply because someone wants to get some of their Steem out.
Exactly, it doesn't need to be an all or nothing deal... Why not adjust voting weight relative to the power down?
Or just let it fall off as the SP falls off. I'm no programmer, but this seems the most basic and simple. IMO, it's the most intuitive too.
This is also a more than reasonable solution.
I would agree with you on the current 2 year contract... But with this new proposal.. nah...
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.