What problem(s) are you solving with changing the powerdown period to 4 weeks?

Is the intended result to bring more investors? I don't understand how bringing more investors will help. It seems to me that investors come and go and the net effect is the same. It also seems that what Steem really needs is more users. So changes made have to be about meeting the needs of users. Whether a 4-week powerdown is better for most users than a 13-week powerdown should be carefully discussed and data has to be gathered from the community (and from 'normies' who are not on Steem) about it. I don't know which of the two powerdown periods (or some other one) will serve people better - it seems worthwhile to investigate the matter (i.e. work from as much data as possible, rather than only opinion).

A 4-week powerdown may also cause disintegration and destabilization. Such possible negative effects also better be investigated much more thoroughly.

What do you think?