Is it dropping, or are some signaling?
It's like holding up a sign that says, "This might happen at some point." Giving people plenty of time to prepare.
It could be several months before any actual change. Or it might not change.
And from what I've gathered, the gradual approach is what most seem to agree with.
As a witness, if you are signalling 15% then does that not mean you want 15%. If you want 19%, why not signal 19%? Last I looked, there was only one witness in the top 100 or so signalling a slight drop. Everybody else was at either 20%, 15%, 12% or something lower.
I realize of course that it takes enough witnesses (or enough hive power) signalling a certain percentage to make it so. Right now the majority are still signalling 20% so that's where it is still at. It's just that most of those witnesses that want a change want a significant change. A majority of people may want a gradual change but a majority of witnesses do not (based on what they are signalling). They either want no change or a big change (with like one exception).
Yes, it's probably safe to say what they signal is what they prefer. Of course I can't speak for anyone. It's also possible now some are signaling 20%, and maybe they don't want to.
It jumped from 12% to 20%. That was significant, and a solid demonstration of how the system works. People knew what to expect. Change. Since its inception, the rate is subject to change, by design. People were happy with a significant change before (not everyone of course). So what changed?
Where was the argument about gradual change when it moved up? It's the exact same system. So what changed? ;)
So I wonder why the change needs to be a coordinated effort (supposed to be decentralized), while the system as is involves everyone signaling their own rate independently, effectively creating a gradual and everchanging process.
It doesn't have to be coordinated yet it's also ok for people to voluntarily get together to discuss it too. Makes more sense to me then everybody working in isolation with no input or discussion with others. Decentralization isn't the same as a gag order. It's supposed to be a "consensus" after all :). Plus, since witnesses rely on their voters, they may feel they need to explain themselves if they are making what may be a controversial decision. Witnesses can signal how they want independently of course. But voters vote independently too. Debating these things out in the open makes more sense than just seeing some random change happen. At the end of the day, witnesses can still signal however they want.
Personally, I would not have minded if the rate went up slower vs. all at once but I think the risks of lowering the rate drastically are different that the risks of raising it drastically. I also don't see that anything significant has changed that suggests the 20% was a mistake or needs to end now hence I would prefer no change or at least a more gradual approach. But as they say, opinions are like assholes, everybody's got one...
I'm sure people do put their heads together, then act on their decisions independently. I'm not suggesting how people should come to their conclusions.
And yes. I'm not here to provide responses to the "popular" talking points and arguments. Just sitting here trying to wrap my head around all this.
I think anyone going into HBD rationally would simply accept the attractive range, rather than picking one round number and cheering for it. Then sit back and enjoy life, I guess.
New Slogan: HBD. For investors who know how to chill.
LOL. That was a joke.