Based on what I've seen so far, the opinions around this topic are pretty diverse and dare I say: conflicting.

I understand the reason for a shorter power-down period, but I also see the value in having a longer period. And I don't think it's a good time right now, to push changes, which too many people have problems with, including big stakeholders.

Now, personally, the proposed change lacks vision IMO. I'd rather have a system which rewards people for staking Steem longer dynamically, instead of forcing everyone to be okay with 13 weeks. For example, Alice might rather want to have a power-down of 4 weeks, while Bob would like to stake it for 6 months and Peter only wants 1 week. Alice would earn less inflation than Bob because she could be out way faster. On top of that, Peter could only participate in the rewards-pool voting, but not in voting for witnesses/proposals, as this requires a minimum of 4 weeks staking.

Projects that are incentivised a longer staking period, include Crypto.com and Binance.

https://crypto.com/en/earn.html

Example for Steem: (example numbers)

Besides this, I would also like to see the savings feature be improved. There is absolutely no reason, why we're forced to lock it up for 3 days. This could be dynamic and even reward people with inflation.

With this said I haven't come to a conclusion yet! My instinct goes against any quick changes, but I'll keep monitoring this thread, to get a better insight on what my fellow stakeholders think.

I want to see a unified group of stakeholders on Steem. This doesn't mean that everyone has to be happy, but the majority. And at this time, the last thing we need is even more alienation.