I guess to prevent hive dumping.
Other chains at the top don't have that. If Hive is trying to prevent dumping, it shouldn't be based on that...
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I guess to prevent hive dumping.
Other chains at the top don't have that. If Hive is trying to prevent dumping, it shouldn't be based on that...
A solid platform doesn't need “tricks” to prevent people from dumping. Nobody has said, geeze I'm glad my investment is locked up this tight. It must be building community confidence.
Totally this.
It's interesting how we all lost an understanding or the reason behind the power down long period. Me too. I don't really remember why it was designed that way.
I don't think it's worth remembering why it was designed that way, in part because I think some of the original reasons for it were questionable at best.
But it does serve some useful functions.
One that comes to mind right away is it discourages exchanges from voting with custodial stake (although it clearly didn't discourage enough in the case of Steem, as exchanges were apparently persuaded that the rules would be changed afterwards to prevent them from suffering any consequences).
It also favors giving long term investors more say over governance decisions than it does speculators. On the whole, I think that is probably beneficial.
It's also saved a lot of people from losing all their funds when they've leaked their keys.
This. I'd say a month is the bare minimum time if it is ever changed.
Would you mind looking at the idea behind this post
https://leofinance.io/hive-167922/@jocieprosza/bootstrapping-whive-liquidity-via-provisory-solution
But it DOESN'T discourage exchanges from voting, does it?
The exchanges first need to give a damn about Hive to even care to stake. They do not.
Proof of point being steem with Binance and huobi having so little interest in Steem staking that they had 0 clue they were locking up customer funds for so long. .
Another counter to the silly notion: "It deters exchanges from voting thus its justified" is the fact that you HAD to add the 30 day waiting period.
That is a far better detterant and guess what... the justification for locking up funds for 3 months over the fear of exchange voting after this is implemented goes out the window completely.
Another poor justification. You're doing this at the price of completely alienating non investors. Why do this when you can have both?
You can "easily" adjust the governance model so those that stake for longer have more say. You can even adjust the reward system to encourage it.
There is simply nothing that justifies the 3 month powerdown time that cannot be replaced with a smarter system.
I feel that all it stems from is fear that people will sell and that's the stupidest position to take.
Posted using Dapplr
My opinion is that 3 months or 1 month will have little impact, if any, on the price of Hive (which seems to be what most people are concerned about). I think there's much more important things to focus on. But it is certainly easy to change, from a technical perspective, so if you convince stakeholders that it's a good change, it can happen. But please don't waste your rhetorical efforts on me, as I see the tradeoffs as being about equal between the two choices.
There is no "trade off" when you fix the faults another way by introducing new features, eg. 30 day wait period.
This could potentially make HIVE more interesting to investors while current powerdown time is a deterrent.
Would it affect the price? Answer to that question neither of us knows. Maybe with a good ad campaign it would. Maybe. Maybe nothing would in the time of the Defi hype.
What the fuck are you talking about?
If this comment was in support of what i said:
If it wasnt:
Jesus. lol