I don't mind if the power down is shortened.
I don't see any reason to add a more complicated internal process instead of focusing on market awareness and usability.
This is more making changes to feel like a you did something.
I don't care if you do it, but there are other things that could make a bigger difference
Agree with this in terms of priorities. Although with the community going ahead with two polls on the issue (ironically spending more time debating it than has ever been done marketing Steem or people's content), it more or less forces Steemit Inc to give a thoughtful reply. So not sure I would make it sound like they made this change to "feel like they did something".
But we certainly need to come around to more important topics.
Okay, good point... they are just responding.
I'm not going to make a big deal out of it, because it isn't a big deal.
Edited to ask how this supports your stated number 1 goal of onboarding?
Given people the right amount of incentives for locking up their stake is critical. Right now, 13 weeks is a random number the devs came up with when reducing it from 2 years powerdown. There is absolutely no reason why we should keep this legacy approach around, which isn't catering to different individuals, but rather is forcing everyone to have the same mindset (power it up for 3 months or you won't be able to participate)
I've never heard anyone say on Twitter, Steem or elsewhere. They were going to buy Steem but the power down period is too long. I lean slightly towards shortening it would be a good thing.
As I've said... I don't mind shortening it, making it complicated is just what many on Steem like to do in the name of "incentives".
I also find it interesting I haven't seen anyone look at the data we currently have to help make the decision. For instance, how many accounts impacting x amount of Steem are in full powerdown. One could assume that anyone who isn't in full power down, doesn't want or need a faster power down. (historically, would be even better, so see if there is a running average)
No one has done any market research such as an internal and external poll to determine how many people have avoided powering up due to the power down period. Clearly that was an issue if you remember when we had 104 week power downs... and it was clear it was an issue.
My opinion this is internal guessing on making more changes, without much thought to feel like we are making improvements.
Tell me Wolf, would you have a goal of what percentage of Steem you would like to see powered up?
Currently.. 127,853,120 Liquid STEEM (37.747% of supply) About 62 percent, is powered up (I'm rounding) The highest I've ever seen is 72%... What would you see as optimum?
If you don't have a goal and aren't sure of the results you are trying to achieve.. It is like throwing a dart at a dart board blindly and hoping it hits.
But this doesnt do anything though. Those that were powered up will remain so, those that arent wont be.
Giving a choice when powering up as to how long you will be powered up means nothing.
The point was to increase steem mobility, liquidity etc. Not adding a pointless complicated process.
I think we agree, see my next comment.