Make it a week and be done with it.
Or, even better, shorten everything to 5 days. 5 days curation, 5 days powerdown, 5 days unstaking.
There is no law that says: make crypto as confusing as possible. We don't have to live like this. We really don't.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Five days is interesting .... I would even go for a three days, since most of the voting seems to happen in the first day or two.
I also prefer simple solutions, but the trend in the crypto tokenomics seems to be adding more complexity.
What are your thoughts on the exchanges voting in governance?
If we make everything on three days, then it's easy to exchanges to power up and vote with user funds.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
3 days is even better but I didn't want to rock the boat too much ;)
Hardly anybody votes after 24 hours of publishing. Maybe some freaks who optimized for farming. These guys have no trouble adjusting to 3 days.
I don't care about that exchange voting issue at all. Not their coins, not their vote.
Because Hive has a history with exchanges using coins in creative ways, we could keep the 30 days governance voting delay. We could even increase it to a lot longer. Governance is not the main reason that makes Hive appealing to a broad audience. Governance actions are infrequent anyways. That means it doesn't matter much if your powered up stake registers now or in a few weeks.
Governance action are not frequent but they are at the bottom of the security of the chain. Imagen this chain being attacked again, and the attack is successfull? Wouldnt that make people think twice about this whole network?
If this chain is being attacked by colluding exchanges, again, and a 30 day delay doesn't prevent that, what is the chain worth?
A group of colluding actors will not be deterred by an extremely long powerdown period because they can change it.
It happened at Steem.
I think the 30 days delay in voting is a nice solution, people will notice if a stake with a size that can influence governance is powerd up and take action... even with a short power down periods.
When most votes happen doesn't matter here. The reason is that it takes 5 days for VP to recharge from 0 to 100%. Meaning if it's lower, someone could "double-vote" a post by unstaking and powering up another account to vote on that post again.
I think 30 days would be best because of the account recovery also lasting 30 days in case of a hack or key theft.
Then change the dynamics of VP. Recharge over 3 days but actions cost more.
The 7 day voting window was created because the assumption was that people needed enough time to be able to vote. 3 days is probably enough time.
Somebody did an analysis when votes happen. I don't remember right now.
It used to be 12h and 24h back in the day, I think it was mainly raised to mitigate abuse, so people could have time to reach out to real content creators and ask if it's identity theft, etc. I don't think changing all that just to get a faster powerdown is worth it, the change from 13 weeks to potentially 4 would already be decent enough, imo.
It is an academic discussion and nothing will change.
Why not think a little outside the box ;)
I mainly brought it up cause @dalz said this
just so it's clear that it's not about when most votes occur and it could be something that could halt the chain if the rewardpool gets confused why more stake is voting than there is vp for or something.
Yea that was just to see what sticks :) Still possible if we change the recharge rate ...