At the risk of being labeled a supporter of the leftist, let me be quick to say that the article only concentrates objectively on the merits and demerits of both the @Justinsun school of thought and the top twenty witnesses who are fighting to remain in their place.
Giving a mega-blow to the jaw of justice has not been easy has so many analyses has gone forth in the blockchain to unravel deep secrets as to the intention of men.
Recently, a 22.22 Soft fork was written to override the existing fork with a view to reduce/freeze the stake of Steemit.Inc now owned by @Justinsun who bought it over. Such a fork was to keep him unimportant and toothless in the scheme of things because to them his intentions were not known.
Unmasking the Logic: Truth Conditions
I do not wish to support any one here other than to discuss issues as they are objectively especially at this crucial time in the bkockchain.
From the way things are going, i see an imminent danger because @justinsun will look for all methods available to achieve his aim which mighy lead to a disintegration of the blockchain, establishing independent decentralized bodies from the existing Steemit.
I remembered that the concept of decentralization is not a new thing in the affairs of men, only that it was translated into the concept of twenty-first century money and blockchain dynamics.
Soviet union had component independent territories that enabled them to breakaway.
In the case of Steemit, i believe that it is only different because certain witnesses were voted by the community to be their eyes and ears in the governance of the blockchain, however, it doesn't remove the fact that it does not have an owner has has a stake higher than the rest of them.
In the affairs of men, such practice is not alien and the earlier we understand that, the better it is for us so that we can begin to look at other inward developments for the benefit of the blockchain.
While meditating the issue of a One to Three Days Power Down, i was able to highlight its benefits and demerits on a larger scale, but amidst all these, i discovered that 13weeks statusquo for power down in the steemit blockchain is too much for the concept of what we all call money.
If we are looking forward to mass adoption, i believe it should be looked into.
Money always have the characteristics of being able to be used at any time and at any place relying on the choice of its owner.
As such investors should not only have capacity to invest, but should also have the capacity to withdraw anytime they want. At most, one week is okay for the matrix of all factors to be put in place to enable this feature. This will guarantee investors confidence if they invest and bring in people all the time.
Also it should have the ability to be traded with other currencies that exist. The steem-tron matrix should also be allowed to exist. This will enable other currencies to come onboard and increase mass adoption of steem.
Well, when I was young savings accounts with 90 day withdraw where not uncommon.
At those times savings accounts had 8% annual interest. And some had even longer withdraw times giving even better interest.
Only in recent times we demanded less and less commitment. But those modern instant withdraw savings accounts have barely 0.8% annual interest.
If you want flexibility can invest in STEEM or Steem Backed Dollar (aka SBD). Those you can buy and sell anytime you want.
But those who invest in VEST (aka Steem Power) should be in for the long run. VEST is not currency. VEST is a commitment to the Steem blockchain. And 13 week isn't too long for a commitment.
I appreciate your sentiments however, we should not compare the economics of the sixties to the twenty-first century. You can allow somebody to invest immediately but you take 13weeks to withdraw. Well i believe the logic isn't right. I believe that reducing the number of days will have not affect the system in anyway because this i believe is the fear of everyone in the blockchain.
Why not? Are you afraid that you might find out the economics of the sixties was better?
Sure, we made a lot of improvements in the last 50 years. But some things we made worse. And I add the super fast buying and selling of shares to the “made worse” group.
Hmmmm!Well i agree with you on some aspect, however, i insist that there is nothing wrong if we make powering down shorter in days compared to 13weeks.
Apart from the possibility of the STEEM price falling.
There has been quite the talk of power down. Users who have written off their STEEM investment after the hostile take over and with a 3 day power down they are likely to sell.
The large majority of STEEM is locked in VEST:
https://steempeak.com/stats/@socky/liquid-steem-report-mar-8-2020
If that VEST becomes almost as liquid then STEEM then there is a good change that the STEEM price will fall. It's supply and demand — if supply is quadrupled than prices go down.
If you made the same suggestion a month ago I would said: Maybe, why not? But in the mist of a hostile take over that could lead to panic sells.
PS: If Justin Sun pushes his three day power down I'll power down as well. Because then he has total control of the chain and SteemIt has basically failed in its promise of decentralised censor prove social network.
Okay i get your view now