In my opinion the whole powering up/down thing should work a little differently. The idea is that if you want to have control over things on the network like witnesses and the reward pool, you need to make some kind of commitment. So that's really what Steem Power is - it's the commitment to stay invested in Steem for a certain period of time.
The problem is that it's not a fixed period of time, it's 13 weeks from when you start to power down. Instead I think that SP should be able to be powered down instantly as long as it's been powered up for at least 13 weeks.
This way, powering up is committing to stay invested in Steem for 13 weeks, and after that you've met your commitment and can power down instantly.
Could be this proposal an intermediate compromise between attract new investors and lesser down security risks?
Yep! an interesting idea worth to throw a neuron or two on it right? :)
However, I can't see how this idea could likely require a bigger refactor than other options. I see it way more easy to implement than the many, multiple and diverse that have already been suggested throughout this post. Including those proposed by @steemitblog.
Do you care to elaborate where you see the 'bigger' difficulty?
Well, those lock-ins for a certain period of time is precisely what I find most interesting and accurate on @yabapmatt optics about how address more directly the solution @steemitblog is posing. Well, at least while commitment never stops being present in the 'algorithmic' equation. Because otherwise, ¿Where's The Love? };)
I would still make it opt-in based or with another security layer.
What if an account is compromised right after the lock-in period expires? Wouldn't that allow the person with access to the account to withdraw all SP at once (assuming all SP is unlocked)?
What about @yabapmatt idea?
Could be this proposal an intermediate compromise between attract new investors and lesser down security risks?
Hm. Interesting idea. Could also work, but this would most likely require a bigger refactor than other options.
Yep! an interesting idea worth to throw a neuron or two on it right? :)
However, I can't see how this idea could likely require a bigger refactor than other options. I see it way more easy to implement than the many, multiple and diverse that have already been suggested throughout this post. Including those proposed by @steemitblog.
Do you care to elaborate where you see the 'bigger' difficulty?
It might not be that different actually. The logic around weekly powerdowns would have to be replaced with a lock-in for a certain period of time.
Well, those lock-ins for a certain period of time is precisely what I find most interesting and accurate on @yabapmatt optics about how address more directly the solution @steemitblog is posing. Well, at least while commitment never stops being present in the 'algorithmic' equation. Because otherwise, ¿Where's The Love? };)
I would still make it opt-in based or with another security layer.
What if an account is compromised right after the lock-in period expires? Wouldn't that allow the person with access to the account to withdraw all SP at once (assuming all SP is unlocked)?