What about if instant powerdown was an opt-in process and the powerdown went to a different account?
For example, when opting in for @smooth - it requires setting up a secondary account called @smooth-####### with another set of keys to save.
I know this is possible already in various ways, but if it was "the" process, perhaps it would protect many under normal conditions too.
Who knows, the entire idea of instant, or even just faster, power down is just a concept that overall has been raised and consistently had a lot of pushback and failed to achieve any sort of consensus. The objections are multifaceted, from security to also believing that forced longer-term staking is just inherently better in terms of having stakeholders who are longer-term focused.
I can't stop anyone from continuing to advocate for it but personally I don't think its a good use of my time and effort at this point.
lol, that is fair - I don't need it personally - but it might be interesting to have a burn/stabilizer fee on it for those that think they can beat the market.
The response that is often given is that if you think you can beat the market, just don't power up. Which, if looking at the portion of supply on exchanges, is already widely used in practice.