I'd also like to see an additional benefit for anyone who has staked for 13 weeks or more, perhaps your witness vote is at its full potential once you stake for a longer period of time. That would also reduce the chances of quick stake to change consensus
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
THAT, right there. The whole idea that your witness vote only becomes fully "vested" after you have committed to hold stake a for a while, makes a lot of sense in the context witnesses being tasked with the long term stewardship of the blockchain....
Honestly, my favorite idea is that Steem Power and witness voting was a simple equation of stake amount * stake length. Why would this be good?
Let's say someone from Venezuela can only afford to purchase 500 STEEM to power up, while the average person on Steem can afford 5000. The poorer person could have an equal amount of upvote/downvote potency and witness vote potency simply by being willing to lock up their stake for 10x as much time as the average user.
In this system its not just about how much STEEM you lock up, the longer you lock up your STEEM the more influence you have over the blockchain. This could be very good for the price of STEEM because a lot of STEEM would get locked up for very long periods of time, but it would also be a much more fair system.
For example, let's say a person had 50 STEEM and was willing to lock it up for 10 years. They would be equally influential in the network as someone with 5000 STEEM locked up for 36 days and 12 hours.
At first thought, this sounded very good. But then, think about the current scenario. If TRON locks up their stake for 1 week longer, this will require the rest of the community to lock up for 1 week longer. It's trivial for TRON to do it but probably extremely difficult for the community.
In fact, TRON can lock up for 1 year and this will give them huge governance advantage. The rest of the community likely wouldn't be able to match that and will lose control over the chain. For TRON, locking up for 1 year wouldn't be such a big deal because they can't sell their huge stake in a short time period anyways. So powering it down over a long time seems like quite a desirable trade-off for more governance power.
Same for any larger stakeholder. The large stakeholder would probably enjoy more influence over the reward pool and governance and SPS proposals in exchange for powering down for multiple years. If they have a good-size stake, they can power down over multiple years and get some good amount of STEEM every week. Whereas the small stakeholder, if powered up for a longer period of time, would get a negligible amount of STEEM each week, so why would they choose to power up for a longer period of time?
Overall, I am thinking such a change will put small stakeholders at a disadvantage.