Thanks @smooth, please cast your vote on the proposal if you haven't already.

We decided that was a bad idea for account security, if your account gets hacked, hacker can burn to get all funds out.

Little bit complicated, also if the hacker gets the active key they can change that power down recipient account, unless u put it on a timer that takes 30 days to effect such change, a two account security

Sure anything is possible but adds to complexity of the chain because now you have to store the opt-in state of each account.

The quick powerdown based on burn was at first glance a cool idea but after more thought it totally circumvents any lockup period security, you might as well not have a lockup period for safety then if

The thing is most other crypto doesn’t have long lockups like Steem, there are other ways to protect your funds like split your stake over multiple accounts, a 4 week vesting period is still more protection

Yes I’m in favour of a lowered minimum vesting period with a dynamic options for people who want to lockup longer for security, only reason I didn’t include in the proposal was due to the added complexity,

Yes agreed we need to make the change on the SMT HF.

That’s how bank term deposits work yes.

Yes I am all for a dynamic range, I would like to be able to set longer periods for the Steem I intend to hodl. The 4 weeks baseline is still good, we have even people asking for as low as one week in

Just to clarify would you be more in favour of a system where poweredup SP would have a shorter vesting period than earned SP? That would be a middle ground but unfortunately will require more coding than

I’m not in favour of multiple pools, as I mentioned above Steem is a different animal to EOS, we provide a simple normie friendly gateway to crypto, multiple pools with different staking cycles make the

Steem needs to be simple for users, we cater for more normies than EOS does so we shouldn’t get too complicated, Dan tends to make things too convoluted and technical for the average user. We already have

That’s the reality of investing, same happens on BTC they dump when they see risk ahead and buy again when things are looking positive, the point is they keep creating liquidity and market activity, with

So 1.3 SP per week per 1000 SP works out to 6.76% APR. 1.3 x 52 weeks in a year = 67.6 / 1000 x 100 = 6.76% APR.

Proposal should be right at the bottom, scroll down.

100% VP is not easy to get to, especially if you delegate regularly, each time i delegate on dlease my VP reduces. But in any event we are wanting to keep the code overhead low for the upcoming HF, it

I think the ultimate goal would be 7 days but for now I think 4 weeks is a prudent iteration. I woukd also like to see voluntary longer lockups oncase one were to go on holiday and want the security, also

Thank u @kus-knee.

Nice, glad u like it!