Some additional, thoughts regarding the possible reduction of the 13 weeks to 4...Does it really matter?

in LeoFinance •  5 months ago  (edited)


I've read a ton of posts lately regarding the possible reduction of the 13 week period for a full power-down to just 4. It the natural chain reaction that was initiated by @steemitblog's post really. So I thought I could add a bit more on that.

There is no doubt that everyone wants to see this placed overcrowded. For now it may seem as the bloggers heaven place on Earth, but Steem can be so much more than that.

In order for this to happen Steem need to become an attractive destination for both investors and average users.

There is also no doubt that safety is and should always be the top priority.

Nobody really knows how things will play out if we reduce the 13 weeks to 4 or to 1 or to....whatever.

The truth is that we are brainstorming here and a possible combination of more than one's simple proposal could be beneficial for all of us. And I mean ALL of us regardless the depth of one's wallet.

I've read @Aggroed's post which highlights some possible threats that could occur if we choose the 4 weeks path...some possible benefits...and an idea about "savings" which is pretty much a useless function for the time being...

I'll quote here @Yabapmatt's input though, because I think that it is an out of the box idea and as crazy as it seems, I think it is exactly what we need...But hey remember...that's just me...and Yaba of course...

In my opinion the whole powering up/down thing should work a little differently. The idea is that if you want to have control over things on the network like witnesses and the reward pool, you need to make some kind of commitment. So that's really what Steem Power is - it's the commitment to stay invested in Steem for a certain period of time.

The problem is that it's not a fixed period of time, it's 13 weeks from when you start to power down. Instead I think that SP should be able to be powered down instantly as long as it's been powered up for at least 13 weeks.

This way, powering up is committing to stay invested in Steem for 13 weeks, and after that you've met your commitment and can power down instantly.

Now some people will complain that that removes the security aspect of being in SP, i.e. if someone steals your keys you have 7 days to react before they can sell anything. But there are other ways to add this same security while still achieving the power down periods that we want.

And lastly, I'm not sure 13 weeks is the right number, and maybe 4 weeks is better, but no matter the number I think the method of powering down that I described above makes a lot more sense than the current system.

In addition...maybe nobody should have voting rights regarding the SPS and witnesses until the have stayed powered up >= 13 weeks. And you have it all.

Most peoples major concern is what happens to a possible phishing attack...and that a possible reduction to 4 weeks could make things a lot easier for fraudsters, which is true.

It is one thing to lose 1/13th of your SP if a power-down is initiated by a scam and another to lose 1/4...or even all of it.

Does that mean that we are not safe?

I can help myself but wonder...

Could that change cause a real problem -safety wise-?

There are a lot of accounts which have massive holdings ALL in "liquid form". Including the accounts Binance or Bittrex or Huobi are using to transfer STEEM to and from the exchanges. And I ain't talking about a few thousand tokens and such...but millions of them.

There are also a lot of individuals who prefer to keep liquid STEEM in their wallets instead of powering it up all the time, just in case....

Does that mean that we should power everything up just to be safe?

If an account is compromised the first thing scammers will do is to withdraw all the liquid assets STEEM / SBD to the exchanges...and then maybe initiate a power-down procedure, NO?

This is exactly why I think that ultimately, Yabapmatt's approach is the best one.

And speaking of safety...I wonder if the implementation of a 2FA would solve possible phishing attacks. Is it even doable?

PS. I also think that those ads implemented by Steemit.Inc...should be checked a lot more often...

Feel free to share your thoughts in the comment section below.

Have a good one peeps.
Image Source

Posted via Steemleo

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

I saw @Yabapmatt's comment on your post the other day, glad you highlighted it here. You are right about 13 weeks being too long but the safety of funds is paramount so in that sense, I guess the 13 weeks is working so...why fix it (is what some may say)?

I do think it needs to change and I like Yabapmatt's dynamic fix rather than just a reduction to 4 weeks. Thanks @mindtrap.

Posted via Steemleo

Hey. The SP should be able to shut down immediately if it is turned on for at least 13 weeks. this is enough to get acquainted with the platform. no one will sell now - the price is very low.
If you are a beginner and have ended 13 weeks, you can exit at any time, or you can extend the blocking period and the longer your blocking period, the more privileges you have on the platform - or you are ready for an instant exit but lose many privileges - how do you like this idea?

Posted via Steemleo

It is one thing to lose 1/13th of your SP if a power-down is initiated by a scam and another to lose 1/4...or even all of it.

It seems to me that you are bullying us - this is not the biggest problem (there are white output addresses, there are 2FA, you can come up with many more ways to protect.)
People store crypto on exchanges, thereby exposing themselves to much greater danger - people, by their stupidity, will always lose their crypto - even if you come up with a million ways of protection.
The @Yabapmatt idea is great - 13 weeks is enough for a beginner to understand the platform and decide to develop it or dump it! (this is true) Beginners always have a small amount of Steem and instant exit and drain of coins on the exchange does not affect the price. I think we are moving in the right direction. I just urge all witnesses to look at the situation not from their positions, but from the perspective of a novice. Imagine yourself a beginner, imagine that you have zero knowledge about STEEM. You buy a steem, register, and in the process you learn a million rules and regulations with a bunch of restrictions (it doesn't remind you of a prison)
Make a decision as a beginner and then thousands of newcomers will come here !!!
Sorry for my english )

Posted via Steemleo

I don't think it matter much, but I lean slightly for it.

I don't know if it is worth the extra programming and testing... Shrugs.

13 weeks feels like ...forever.

Could it work? Unless something is implemented...we can only guess. Although I do believe that Yaba's approach is really interesting.

Interesting or not it is a full reworking of a lot of code. vs changing a date.

Is it really? I think it's the same case...changing a date after one has fulfilled their commitment of staying powered up for 13 weeks....

It is one easiest thing to change and test, it has done before from two years to 13 weeks. It is not an extra work at all?

We have to understand through investors perspective 4 weeks is much better than 13 weeks.

Posted via Steemleo


I like both @yabapmatt's idea of a 13 week commitment before being able to power down. Maybe a setup where the 13 week gets a power down without penalty and a 4 week costs a 10-15% contribution to the DAO to power down.

Your point about the savings account not being used much while there is a pile of liquid steem sitting on the platform is well made. I liked @aggroed's suggestion of being able to put funds into savings, have easier access to those funds while they count like SP for voting and curating but have zero impact on voting for witnesses and the SPS.

While this discussion is of value, I don't think this should be something that is part of the next hardfork. That needs to be devoted to the SMTs as one of the most extensive changes to be made yet. The discussions may yet yield much better ideas than just moving a 13 week power down to 4.

Looking for writing inspiration? Receive a set of prompts via email every day. Sign up here

The discussions may yet yield much better ideas than just moving a 13 week power down to 4.

I couldn't agree more. After all I highly doubt there is anyone around here who wants STEEM to go straight to hell... didn't just drop a phishing link did ya? :p :P Kidding of course :) I will sign up!

Thank for your input @shadowspub!

definitely not Phishing .. but am fishing for some great content to be created from the prompts :)

I'm loving Yaba's suggestion and honestly it's like an epiphany went off in my mind. That makes complete sense, the method right now never made sense to me.

As a creator my commitment has been publishing to the blockchain and curating... I don't understand why half the rewards I earn need to be locked away for 13 weeks, what if I don't want to have that much voting weight but still stay committed to creating content. Who cares if I immediately transfer my earnings to @blocktrades and exchange it for ETH.. It went through the 7 day payment period, I earned it at this point, it should be up to me what I want to do with it.

If I want more voting power, that is a separate commitment and I agree should have some kind of consequence/compromise.

When I first learned and started following Yaba for awhile I thought they were involved with STEEM because a lot of what they have done for STEEM or suggested for STEEM I completely agree with as it's been so genius.

~My complaint is not literal though, I have already scammed the 13 week system by taking control of my rewards by using @likwid beneficiary, sometimes I set 100% to @likwid which means my reward is paid out in 100% liquid STEEM!

So the 13 week rule along with 50/50 payout no longer even stands for security since there is now a loophole to avoid it.