Are we one step away from the reduction of the 13 week period for a full power down to...just 4 ? According to the SPS...YES we are.

in steem •  11 months ago  (edited)

I guess that everyone is familiar with the SPS proposals and the way this whole system works by now. After all it is well explained and over discussed topic. For those of you that still don't know what this whole this is all about, a short explanation would be:

"A mechanism that makes sure to provide the requested funds when a proposal submitted by any member of the Steem community "surpasses" the return proposal submitted by @gtg."

The procedure is more or less the same when one casts a vote for witnesses. What that mean is that it is a stake based procedure.

Long story short, a few weeks ago @thecryptodrive submitted a proposal in which he explained the reasons why the 13 week period for a full powerdown should be cut down to 4.

Last time I checked and while many people were in favor of this submission, the total amount of SP this particular proposal had received was something in the range of 7 - 8 million SP. But things look completely different as we speak.

2019-11-14 20_39_51-SteemWorld ~ Worker Proposals.png

The thing is that despite the fact that @gtg's return proposal has collected more than 14.8 million SP in total -obviously people have voted for it so that "junk" have no chance to cross that number, myself included- it seems that @cryptodrive found massive support lately and his proposal is sitting on top of the list.

This is a breakdown of the voting list

2019-11-14 20_45_35-SteemWorld ~ Worker Proposals.png

Obviously @proxy.token but also @clayop have massive influence when it comes to proposals since they have more than 10 million proxied SP combined.

I don't really know how things will play out right now and if the rest of the witnesses "have" to approve this proposal since it is officially voted and approved by the whole community, so I hope some of the top witnesses could enlighten us regarding what comes next...

As you can clearly see, it's not a proposal that requires bags of SBD / Steem does require a HF.

I will tag a couple of active witnesses such as @themarkymark @blocktrades and also @therealwolf who are active and often willing to share some of their knowledge with the rest of us all.

Have a good one.

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

Ok so the proposal has the active backing of 8% of the total SP.

Why are more people not voicing what a stupid idea this is?
Really? 13 down to 4? Just gonna jump straight down to 4?
What happened to literally every number in between?

If it were up to me I'd create governance voting mechanics that allowed it to slide down over time. Every month there would be a vote on whether to increase it or decrease it by one week (or keep it the same). Then it would take a full 9 months of consecutive consensus voting to get it down to the 4 weeks.

I'm sick of this platform thinking we need to play everything fast, loose, and risky because price action is down. People need to pull it together and realize their fishtailing is going to make everything worse.

I know that it seems frustrating at times but I think everyone is proposing either officially or unofficially what would benefit Steem the most. I don't really think anyone has bad intentions since we are all on the same boat.

13 is a lame unlucky number.
Let's go 7 :D

Hahahaha true!

I don't really think anyone has bad intentions since we are all on the same boat.

That is absurd given the level of rent seeking this platform has seen over the years.

I would consider his proposal "seeking input and checking support".

The Money awarded just goes back into the fund...

But clearly these changes haven't been coded or put to the test of real consensus.

Which is achieved when 17 of the top 20 adopt the code.

At this point there is no code.

Yeah I know...

So was that supposed to be a check if the community is backing him up? Only?

And how do we measure the support? By the overall SP displayed? 3 people were enough....12 mill SP.

Maybe another metric? Such as the total number of voters etc...?

Total number of voters doesn't matter for anything but emotion.

The stake elects the witnesses and the witnesses decide what to drop or reject.

So the fact it only takes 3 is pretty consistent with our active distribution.

My opinion is he was just testing the idea for support.

As @demotruk wrote in comments, it's just a point of view, a stake-weighted poll that shows support for idea. Idea and outcomes, including security related (4 weeks is less than recovery period) are a bit more complex than just changing number of weeks and thus it might be not idea to make that change during / before upcoming SMT hardfork. For example: do we want additional failover for accounts that changed owner key in last 30 days?

Stake used for SPS approvals is still far away from amounts that are voting for witnesses, but it's still a good use case (asking stake holders for approval of a given idea)

Thanks for the clarification @gtg

Stake used for SPS approvals is still far away from amounts that are voting for witnesses,

True. Yet I have a feeling that due to massive inactivity, things maybe, just maybe would look different if the whole voting process for witnesses started tomorrow morning.

Some huge votes have been sitting there since...always, while the owners of those accounts are long gone.

Well, it's not the problem with those who are voting, it's the problem with those who are not.

The threshold for beating the return proposal is hardly sufficient for changes to network consensus rules/policy. It's a completely different metric.

You mean even if it's the top voted proposal, still, it has no effect at all?

Then why submitted in the first place?

Same reason people make petitions on It's symbolic of support.

Is this official or just your point of view?

Kindly asking because I don't really know

It's not just my point of view. Getting above the return threshold merely triggers the DAO payout. There is absolutely no change in the network rules. The point is to show support, it's a political move.

Following. Interesting precedent

Posted using Partiko Android

Time shall tell(?) or we are already there?

This requires a hardfork so it is just exciting since is has the approval of great stake holders @mindtrap
Now I guess that investors will not get scared to put their money on steem because I realized that 13 weeks to power-down really is a very long timeframe plus it will give us more reason to power-up because powering down will not be painfully long anymore.

I still don't know if there is any chance to be implemented in the code but we shall see what those in charge have to say about it

Your post has been curated by the bitcoin myk project. Tokens are available for this account you can trade for steem at: Join our curation priority list to earn more tokens by registering at:

Visit our discord at:

Bitcoin MYK
Register - Bitcoin MYK
This post earned 150 BTCMYK

Thank you!

Another Hard Fork so soon after HF21. It sounds like askinf for a Brexit...which will never be Brexiting, whatch that space and mark my words, the oracle has spoken.

A 4 week powerdown - Dreams do come true, though we will believe it when we see it. A 13 week powerdown obliges us to lose on the swings or make up on the roundabouts since the steem price could be super volatile in a 13 week period.

Dear @mindtrap

Any clue where of 13 weeks power down came from in the first place? there must be a reason why it's 13, not 4. Just curious


I have no idea really. All I know is that during the early days, the powerdown period used to be 2 years :O