Instant power down with burn is not mutually exclusive with progressive power up period. You can make the burn percentage fee scale with the stake duration. For example, 1 week stake has 1% burn fee, 2 week stake has 2% burn fee, etc. This punishes people that fails their long term commitment while still giving them option to exit instantly. The security aspect is discussion for another day though.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I voted for 4 weeks to disconnect - I do not change my opinion.
I'm interested in - how many accounts voted for 4 weeks and how many to leave as is?
It is very important
Does it really matter? It is a stake based procedure anyways...Stake does the talking...
PS. I know what you mean...
People do have a little influence, a tiny bit. Some whales care.
Perhaps its time we started to question the status quo in that regard and have some meaningful discussions about it?
Maybe there are some areas such as witness selection, and proposals for structural change, that would be far more beneficial for the growth of the platform, if a democratic system for making decisions was implemented?
Understandable, but the proposal on the original post will kill the dispute of ideal staking period once and for all so I personally think it's plain better than just a variable change to yet another arbitrary number.
We are not democracy. The number of accounts voting in favor of something doesn't matter.
Then why ask us? Let the whales choose what they want and vote for what they want - but we will stand aside and see how many more people will escape from the platform!
I share your concerns personally. I will note that intelligence may not involve immediate economic benefits, but it is of critical import to economic issues.
The social interactions on Steem are OSINT intelligence mechanisms, in that regard.
Thanks!
As you weigh people's various responses, you can make out a better understanding of situations in general. This helps both big and small stakes to build their opinion. So why ask? To measure the reaction, to learn from people's input, to better understand the human side of the consequences of their actions, etc.
So people with a lot of stake know what people in general (regardless of stake) want? As you said, if opinions of people with smaller stake are straight up ignored we can just leave, degrading the value of the network as a whole, destroying the value of their stake. How are they supposed to know what we want if they don't even ask us?