RE: The Game Theory Behind Speculator Fees

I read the comments so far.

While I now understand what theycallmedan meant with the PU and the liquid rewards fees, I also understand the resistance towards them.

Personally I would go with the least controversial option: fee for instant PD.

I reiterate what I mentioned a few times before. Only add instant PD option if the instant access to all funds of compromised accounts will not be possible. You can't rely on a front end switch for that, it must be implemented at the blockchain core.

I also want to mention for those reading this the instant PD would be an extra option. There will still be the free power down option taking 13 weeks to complete. It's not a replacement.

I saw in one or more of the comments the argument of second layer defi in the Hive ecosystem which would provide a better APR than all those fees you proposed combined could, while Hive would be liquid. I'd like to address that:

Hive on a second layer is not Hive, it's a pegged token on a different chain.
Hive on a second layer does not contribute to the governance on Hive, voting proposals, reward distribution.

That doesn't mean I don't like the idea of more sidechains on Hive. The richer the ecosystem the better. I'm actually very excited by the few projects I know are being worked on as sidechains.

Back to the instant power down. I don't think we have much to object to this.

speculators will be penalized, but also have their opportunity to do their thing
it won't create new inflation
fees will go to existing stakeholders, stake-weighted, increasing benefits for long-term holders