This is the raw chat log from todays meeting held in the Steemcoinpan discord tonight.
There is no audio in this video, it was purely a text meeting (to my surprise)
[12:03 AM] jayplayco: Now that we have all Reps together I would like to welcome everybody and thank you to have the time to join this open meeting.
[12:03 AM] jayplayco: To give a short overview.
[12:04 AM] jayplayco: We would like to have the Kor. Rep. ask some key questions and would like to answer Steemit (Justin), Rep. for Witnesses and a majority for Stakeholders (Roelandp) and also the Steemfoundation (Guiltyparty) to answer that question.
[12:05 AM] jayplayco: If we find the time after the questions I would also like to have each Rep. to ask Justin a question.
[12:05 AM] jayplayco: If everybody is ok, I would like to start.
[12:05 AM] glory7: shall I begin?
[12:06 AM] jayplayco: @Justin Sun @roelandp @GuiltyParties [.com] are you ok?
[12:06 AM] Justin Sun: yes please
[12:06 AM] glory7: First of all, I would like to thank you for joining us today, on behalf of the Korean community
[12:06 AM] GuiltyParties [.com]: Yes.
[12:06 AM] glory7: there will be 3-4 questions, and let me start with the 1st one
[12:06 AM] glory7: 1. Do you agree to change the current voting system (1 steem power 30 vote) to 1SP 1vote?
[12:06 AM] Justin Sun: 시작하자
[12:06 AM] glory7: (1SP 3 or 5 votes is also an alternative option)
[12:07 AM] jayplayco: Please Justin, you may start with your answer. Thanks!
[12:07 AM] Justin Sun: TRON is 1 TRX 1 vote and it works very well.
[12:07 AM] Justin Sun: I think we can definitely explore this idea.
[12:07 AM] jayplayco: @GuiltyParties [.com] please wait for your tunr.
[12:07 AM] Justin Sun: Also we won't rush to conclusion depend on the discussion of community.
[12:08 AM] jayplayco: Ok, as far as I understood, you keep it as an option but would not decide it alone, as far as I understood as you would like to have the voice from the community on it.
[12:09 AM] Justin Sun: yes
[12:09 AM] jayplayco: Thanks a lot.
[12:09 AM] jayplayco: @roelandp May we have your opinon on it.
[12:09 AM] roelandp: Good evening Steem community, Korean community, Steem Foundation, Steemit Inc, fellow talkers. My name is Roelandp and I am representative of the Majority of the Steem Stakeholders by elected voteweight. Tonight i will try to answer any questions you might have, although I might not be able to answer everything representing the whole "Steem Stakeholders" group, but only those questions related to the stances we discussed together prior to this meeting.
[12:09 AM] roelandp: No one person can speak for the steem blockchain or for all of the steem Witnesses at once, but I will do my best today to answer and ask questions, and if anything needs more clarification then we can organize a follow-up meeting.
[12:09 AM] jayplayco: Thanks a lot and understood.
[12:09 AM] roelandp: We hope the Korean community values the newly chosen path of the Steem community which started with the introduction of the Steem Proposal System feature. This was namely a hardfork requested by community choice (and even built by community members) instead of Steemit Inc being the sole developer of and instigator of changes to the blockchain.
[12:10 AM] roelandp: As we are united for Steem.
[12:10 AM] roelandp: Regarding the 1 SP 1 VOTE specifically:
[12:10 AM] roelandp: Although interesting, we would like to abstain from choosing any specific requests by the any part of the community in order to potentially “win their vote” in the current state of situation, as we feel the community as a whole needs to decide about certain matters proposed by the parts of the community. Our mantra is the blockchain mantra: “Move slow, don’t break things”: Discuss, vote, code, test, discuss, code, test, implement.
[12:11 AM] roelandp: Thus we think it is best, to discuss, and ultimately vote on blockchain related changes through the SPS
[12:11 AM] jayplayco: Ok. understood and thanks for your input.
[12:11 AM] jayplayco: @GuiltyParties [.com] may we have your opinion on it?
[12:12 AM] roelandp: Lastly: governance and voting issues came up at steemfest and have been something that the witness Community was looking to discuss until they were derailed with defending the network in the situation we're in now.
[12:12 AM] roelandp: (sry GP)
[12:13 AM] GuiltyParties [.com]: First, I have to ask everyone to keep in mind that the Steem Foundation is a community non-profit and to remember that we are not governance but we're an advisory role that also promotes collaboration across communities and bridging. As thus, I speak today only for the Foundation and not for anyone else. In respect to the question: This is an idea that has to be thoroughly modeled before even being considered at all and can have serious problems. As thus, we cannot support any such change proposals for the Steem blockchain without a due process with the aforementioned risk modeling, reports of change management, respectable testing, and consensus amongst the existing governance which is our community-selected witnesses.
[12:14 AM] jayplayco: Ok. As far as I can see, steemfoundation does not seeing it in the moment as it is not with a due process.
[12:14 AM] jayplayco: @glory7 second question please.
[12:14 AM] glory7: let me state this first:
[12:15 AM] glory7: I was expecting a lot more detailed answers, or direct YES/NO ones. Repeating such vague, general "it depends" "we may discuss further" would be a waste of time
[12:15 AM] glory7: I expect to hear your opinion, not whether it would be the final decision
[12:15 AM] glory7: that being said, let me move on the the 2nd one
[12:16 AM] glory7: 2. Do you agree to change the powerdown period to 1 or 4 weeks?
[12:16 AM] jayplayco: @Justin Sun a clear answer on your thoughts would be appreciated.
[12:17 AM] Justin Sun: yes. I definitely agree to short the powerdown period
[12:17 AM] Justin Sun: TRON is 3 days
[12:17 AM] Justin Sun: it works well
[12:17 AM] Justin Sun: We can also collaborate with exchanges on staking
[12:18 AM] Justin Sun: Binance has supported TRON/Tezos/Cosmos staking
[12:18 AM] Justin Sun: I think STEEM can be one of them
[12:18 AM] Justin Sun: But it is important we should have a short period
[12:18 AM] Justin Sun: 13 weeks is too long for exchanges to stake
[12:19 AM] Justin Sun: also for everyone
[12:19 AM] Justin Sun: it will reduce the participation rate
[12:19 AM] Justin Sun: because people will be rather keeping liquidity in exchange
[12:19 AM] Justin Sun: than staking
[12:19 AM] jayplayco: Would be a 4 week powerdown an option as first step?
[12:20 AM] Justin Sun: I definitely think we can be shorter.
[12:20 AM] Justin Sun: But of course it depends on discussion.
[12:20 AM] Justin Sun: But most of the blockchain TRON/EOS/Tezos/Cosmos is short
[12:21 AM] jayplayco: Ok, it is understood that 1 week or 4 weeks would be both an option for you with a preference for rather 1 week.
[12:21 AM] Justin Sun: yes
[12:21 AM] jayplayco: Ok.
[12:22 AM] Justin Sun: TRON is 3 days. So we get lots of exchanges and wallets supported on staking, like binance/huobi/kucoin/poloniex
[12:22 AM] Justin Sun: we are working with more exchanges and wallets to support on that
[12:22 AM] Justin Sun: the more supports we have the better prices we have
[12:22 AM] Justin Sun: bithumb supports TRON staking recently
[12:23 AM] jayplayco: Yes, I think investors can understand that point of your view.
[12:23 AM] jayplayco: @roelandp an very important feedback here, if there would be a common ground also from the witnesses or not.
[12:24 AM] roelandp: Hi Jayplayco, thx for your input Justin, let me get the answer to question 2
[12:24 AM] roelandp: As i said, no one witness can decide on these matters by one-self.
[12:24 AM] jayplayco: Yes, that is understood.
[12:25 AM] roelandp: So... blockchain is a complex technology and so is a decentralized community, sometimes that requires complex answers :slight_smile: Especially when negotiating with a lot of people
[12:25 AM] roelandp: I understand this may sound vague.... But hey... We've been together 4 years. And did move on. Albeit slow at times, this change can be a catylist for great new things
[12:25 AM] roelandp: getting back to the 1 / 4 weeks pd
[12:26 AM] roelandp: This is not a representation of the Majority Steem Stakeholders by consensus, but rather my opinion:
[12:26 AM] roelandp: I am open to discussions to lower it further (mind you the powerdown had changed from 2 years to 13 weeks) however I want to prevent too much "fast food voting" where investors come & go and just move to steem for some botvoting for a week and move out again. I'd consider that raping the reward pool and destructive to the community.
[12:27 AM] roelandp: And I find Steem is yes ofcourse a blockchain for supporting decentralized apps like botted Casino apps and for example games which can use it to trustless run their plays.... But steem is mainly THE blockchain of REAL people.
[12:27 AM] jayplayco: @roelandp could we please focus?
[12:27 AM] roelandp: with raping i meant abusing.
[12:28 AM] roelandp: again: personally I am open to lowering the powerdown if the community desires such a thing. Personally I would not like to see stacking as an interesting business model and therefore requirement of quick power up power down...
[12:28 AM] roelandp: Because what could be the result: Exchanges running voting bots.
[12:28 AM] jayplayco: As representative of the witnesses, do you think that the witnesses would support a 4 week powerdown for a next hardfork? And a 1 week powerdown?
[12:29 AM] jayplayco: A I don't know is also ok.
[12:30 AM] roelandp: As representative of the witnesses we would like to have that being the result of community consensus through an SPS vote which has a major tendency into a decisive direction.
[12:30 AM] jayplayco: Ok. understood.
[12:30 AM] jayplayco: @GuiltyParties [.com] how is the steemfoundation looking into the powerdown timing.
[12:30 AM] GuiltyParties [.com]: This is my personal opinion as not only a Steem Foundation Director but as also the person who deals with most of the phishing/hacking here: No to 1 week, yes to 4 weeks. 1 week produces an immence risk to accounts should they become compromised. They will be emptied, including any official or exchange accounts, should they be hacked. Hacking and phishing is so paramount on the Steem blockchain that we have well over 1000 accounts currently under hacker control from phishing alone. There are between 250-500 which are hacked in addition through unknown means. 1 week is not sufficient to secure an account.
I do realize that this is something the exchanges want. However, I personally don't see a need for exchanges to power up in the first place. The only reason for this is a mistake on their part, as what occurred. I see this as a one-off incident that will hopefully not be repeated and should not be repeated as it put the credibility of the exchanges into question.
More so, what worked on one blockchain may not necessarily work best on another blockchain. See my points regarding hacking above. Steem is a blockchain that has widened mainstream audience. It is not the same as a crypto-enthusiast blockchain where the majority know best practices of wallet safety. It is also a blockchain with governance and due buy-in processes for every such alteration.
That being said, in regards to 4 weeks, this is something that has been discussed before within the community. I would suggest that for the real answer of whether this is plausible we should refer to the appropriate SPS proposal for it and look for input there from seasoned Steem developers and witnesses. But in my personal opinion and experience, 4 weeks would be an acceptable minimum providing this alteration is approached with due change management approaches.
[12:31 AM] jayplayco: Ok, the reason why we have Reps here is because they should talk as Reps and not represent their personal opinion.
[12:31 AM] jayplayco: But the issue is understood.
[12:31 AM] jayplayco: @glory7 please proceed with your next question.
[12:31 AM] GuiltyParties [.com]: The Steem Foundation is not designed for the position of proposing governance changes. Thus personal opinion.
[12:32 AM] glory7: let me put the remaining questions at once
[12:32 AM] glory7: and please state your conclusion/answer first and details later
[12:32 AM] glory7: 3. Do you agree to remove free downvoting mana or make it mandatory to specify the downvoting reason?
[12:32 AM] glory7: 4. Hot potato: Justin's witness voting rights. Justin: under which condition would you like to give up your voting rights (if you ever would like to). Other paricipants: how can you guarantee that softfork or hardfork like 22.2 would not happen again if Justin removes witness votes, according to your request?
[12:32 AM] glory7: that's it for now.
[12:32 AM] jayplayco: @Justin Sun you may start.
[12:33 AM] Justin Sun: sure
[12:33 AM] jayplayco: Thanks a lot.
[12:33 AM] Justin Sun: for 3, Yes. I agree to remove free downvoting.
[12:34 AM] Justin Sun: Free downvoting is hurting lots of people
[12:34 AM] jayplayco: Thanks that is a clear answer.
[12:35 AM] Justin Sun: For 4, we are willing to give up the voting rights under the condition everyone's STEEM should be safe on the STEEM blockchain.
[12:35 AM] Justin Sun: Including our STEEM, exchanges' STEEM, everyone's STEEM
[12:36 AM] Justin Sun: all witnesses should respect the sanctity of private property
[12:36 AM] jayplayco: Ok, this is indeed a very important point and I would like to get a bit into detail.
[12:37 AM] jayplayco: It means that you would give up your votingrights (which as far as I understood also includes the witnessess that are currenty running) when you can be sure that no Steem is going to be frozen (which would mean the safe aspect)
[12:37 AM] Justin Sun: yes
[12:37 AM] jayplayco: What have the witnesses to do be able to prove or gain the trust?
[12:38 AM] Justin Sun: I believe trust should be earned. I think it takes step by step.
[12:39 AM] Justin Sun: First step all witnesses should publish an announcement that they respect the private property and they won't freeze anyone's assets anymore
[12:39 AM] jayplayco: OK understood.
[12:39 AM] jayplayco: That would a possible step to start with.
[12:39 AM] Justin Sun: yes definitely
[12:40 AM] Justin Sun: also retract all the frozen assets codes in github
[12:40 AM] jayplayco: Ok, understood what you see as a step by step trust gaining.
[12:40 AM] jayplayco: Thanks for your input.
[12:41 AM] jayplayco: @roelandp Could you give us your insights as Rep.?
[12:41 AM] roelandp: Yes I will try... we are having a backchatter together so I hope I represent the Majority of Steem Stakeholders, at least I share this also as my opinion:
[12:41 AM] jayplayco: Ok.
[12:41 AM] roelandp: Question 3 - Free downvoting and/or obligatory reasoning.
[12:42 AM] roelandp: No free downvoting hurts every stakeholder through abuse. Reasons are good procedure but cannot be enforeced realistically (people enter blank or rubbish) .
[12:42 AM] roelandp: However...
[12:42 AM] roelandp: Reasons are UI - based, for example any frontend can make those obligatory!
[12:42 AM] roelandp: Downvotes is the base of the Steem, written to the whitepaper.
[12:43 AM] roelandp: Obviously the community should be open to enhancements in this and prevent abuse of the abuse-preventing system
[12:43 AM] roelandp: And should be open about alternative well designed model of abuse fighting...
[12:43 AM] jayplayco: So when I understood it right, downvotes should be free as now but there should be some solution implemented into the UI, right?
[12:43 AM] roelandp: lmk if this is an ok answer?
[12:44 AM] roelandp: Yes we see downvoting as integral part of fighting abuse. However it should not be abused... Then for example making "reasons"-field obligatory could be implemented in each frontend' pretty easy.
[12:44 AM] jayplayco: OK, we should move to Q. 4.
[12:44 AM] roelandp: Question 4: Softfork222 and will it happen again
[12:45 AM] roelandp: According to us it would be admirable if Tron would respect and understand the Steem community values and four years of history regarding the ninja-mine stake.
[12:45 AM] jayplayco: Please let us focus on the answer for it.
[12:46 AM] roelandp: Ok: i will share my opinion, I'm sure many witnesses can agree:
[12:46 AM] roelandp: Dpos is decentralized software. Running on a network. Anyone can run any software and it depends on the consensus of whether transactions forwarded by one's machine get accepted by another.
[12:47 AM] roelandp: I can therefore not guarantee what server or software anyone runs. Unless I make this decentralised network, centralised and run all the witnesses myself.
[12:47 AM] roelandp: But i would need a lot of stake for that.
[12:47 AM] roelandp: To vote my own computer to run the same software.
[12:48 AM] jayplayco:
I can therefore not guarantee what server or software anyone runs
Yes that is totally right.
[12:48 AM] roelandp: To summarize: because no one in an ideal Dpos chain can control any other actor, i cannot guarantee that software with same behaviour as softfork222 will not be ran in the future.
[12:48 AM] jayplayco: Ok, understood
[12:48 AM] jayplayco: I know it is very complicated and you can't actually answer with a yes no or maybe.
[12:49 AM] jayplayco: Thanks for giving a deep insight of it.
[12:49 AM] roelandp: However... the vote for the other version was by a majority rejected and at the moment as far as i can tell there is no intention of running another softfork nor the versions published by one developer on any public github repositories
[12:49 AM] jayplayco: Yes, that is also true.
[12:49 AM] jayplayco: Thanks a lot.
[12:50 AM] roelandp: yw
[12:50 AM] jayplayco: @GuiltyParties [.com] you waited long time.
[12:50 AM] roelandp: 아니에요
[12:50 AM] GuiltyParties [.com]: To question 3: No and Yes. Downvoting mana was put in place to encourage more downvoting to balance out pay. I understand that the Korean community, which has higher rewards on posts, saw stakeholders reducing these rewards to be on par with other similar posts. The downvote mana isn't the issue, the issue is the need to promote open understanding and communication. Yes. Definitely everyone who downovtes should put a reason in order to tell the person who wrote the post or comment why. This is something that can easily be done on any frontend such as Steemit without chain changes, maybe with a special field for the reason right beside the downvote button (idea!). I hope to see such a change to the Steemit frontend soon. (On a personal note, I run one of the biggest anti-exploitation/anti-abuse projects on Steem and am free to consult about downvoting as required in detail.)
[12:50 AM] jayplayco: Ok. that is a clear answer. Thanks.
[12:51 AM] GuiltyParties [.com]: To question 4: The SF happened because there was no open communication. @Justin Sun Justin, you have taken advice from Ned and that advice caused mayhem and turned the entire ecosystem into a humiliation. The Steem Foundation proposes that you opt for honest and open communication with the witnesses without any malicious side influence.
If you read the SF code, it did not touch any account and merely made the chain reject transactions that were deemed hazardous for its secure operation. If you had spoken to witnesses right from the start, potentially even before the Feb 14 announcement, and applied proper change management, I doubt we would have this circus on our hands.
Additionally, the Steemit 'stake' was always 'zoned' for development following its illicit origins, which is why the governance (witnesses and community stakeholders) allowed it to remain. This is something that should have been communicated to Justin right away upon his purchase. It was also promised by Ned and Steemit Inc to the Steem Foundation for management as a donation before. Those promises were largely lies. Everyone in this room was equally as mislead by the same party.
The Steem Foundation has no place in deciding anything to do with a SF but we can offer some contextualization as above.
[12:52 AM] jayplayco: That is not an answer.
[12:52 AM] jayplayco: hope it is coming now.
[12:52 AM] GuiltyParties [.com]: Yes it is. The Steem Foundation has nothing to do with Soft Forks but we are an observer and this is what we have observed.
[12:52 AM] jayplayco: That is true.
[12:53 AM] jayplayco: Ok.
[12:53 AM] jayplayco: It is already really late and we can see that even this kind of short questions can take a lot of time.
[12:53 AM] jayplayco: @Justin Sun do you still have a view minutes?
[12:54 AM] jayplayco: If yes I would like to start with @GuiltyParties [.com] with a question to Justin.
[12:54 AM] Justin Sun: sure
[12:54 AM] Justin Sun: please
[12:55 AM] GuiltyParties [.com]: Justin, this is based on my last point, to what degree are you still accepting input from Ned who evidently caused this entire mess?
[12:56 AM] Justin Sun: I believe this chance is more for the communication of the future of STEEM
[12:56 AM] Justin Sun: We will have dedicated team in the future to communicate with different parties in the future
[12:57 AM] Justin Sun: because of the NDA we can't talk to anymore
[12:58 AM] Justin Sun: Since now we have purchased Steem inc and all the assets with it, we can have a more comprehensive communication in the future
[12:59 AM] roelandp: Thx. Why are the sock puppet witnesses still there?
[12:59 AM] Justin Sun: because of the NDA we can't talk to anyone else at that time
[12:59 AM] GuiltyParties [.com]: Thank you for answering. Based on what you said, the NDA is now no longer an issue I'm assuming and instead of being mislead by Ned you and your team will start speaking directly to the community members and witnesses that are the governance.
[1:00 AM] Justin Sun: First of all, it is not sock puppet. Lots of community vote voted for it.
[1:00 AM] jayplayco: Ok. Thanks. I guess @roelandp has already had his question.
[1:00 AM] roelandp: oh only one. ok
[1:00 AM] Justin Sun: Also we can protect the network from being frozen again
[1:01 AM] Justin Sun: Yes Gulityparties
[1:01 AM] Justin Sun: you are right
[1:02 AM] Justin Sun: I think our plan for the next step is to have a dedicated team to discuss with different parties about their ideas
[1:02 AM] GuiltyParties [.com]: Justin, to interject, but you do realize that if you accidentally cause the actual chain to stop you will have a very hard time of restoring it. This is why communication, communication, communication and real witnesses are a must.
[1:02 AM] roelandp: I wanted to amend about the downvotes: One can remove downvotes when Steem removes the reward pool, and allow them to control fully on anyone's own smt
[1:02 AM] Justin Sun: I believe discussion breeds understanding
[1:03 AM] jayplayco: Yes indeed.
[1:03 AM] jayplayco: We may still not be there where everybody wants to be.
[1:03 AM] jayplayco: but small steps are also steps.
[1:03 AM] roelandp: When will you share the proposed roadmap for Steemit and/or Steem?
[1:03 AM] jayplayco: @Justin Sun We have now already took 1 hour of your time and I don't know if you may willing to answer a second round of questions or have to move?
[1:04 AM] Justin Sun: I have to go
[1:04 AM] Justin Sun: but really thank everyone for taking the time today
[1:04 AM] jayplayco: Could you still give ashort input about the roadmap maybe?
[1:04 AM] Justin Sun: yes. I think the most important thing is to get a team
[1:05 AM] Justin Sun: so now the most time we have is the recruit a dedicated team working on steem/steemit
[1:05 AM] Justin Sun: we have lots of progress on that
[1:05 AM] jayplayco: Sounds like you are already looking for people.
[1:05 AM] Justin Sun: also for exchanges collaboration we have some great progresses too
[1:06 AM] Justin Sun: yes teamwork is important
[1:06 AM] jayplayco: Do you have any questions to the Reps? @Justin Sun
[1:06 AM] roelandp: Justin before you go, as the Koreans and anyone really in Steem community really cares a lot about the rewards pool:
The rewards function is already being negatively impacted because of the price feed by the dangerously centralized and improperly run witnesses.
It needs to be updated on a continueous basis. Not once every 3 weeks.
[1:06 AM] Justin Sun: I think I'm ok.
[1:06 AM] roelandp: this is very important. Sorry to bring this up
[1:06 AM] roelandp: please communicate this with your tech dept
[1:07 AM] jayplayco:
this is very important. Sorry to bring this up
@roelandp This is indeed needed @Justin Sun
[1:07 AM] Justin Sun: @roelandp I will build a group with you and our team. Thanks for the input.
[1:07 AM] jayplayco: Thanks justin for that. @roelandp will get contacted from your team about that.
[1:08 AM] jayplayco: As Justin said that he is no leaving I would like to thank everybody on this discussion for their valuable time.
[1:08 AM] jayplayco: We may not have got all answers or been able to get our questions shoot out but as said, small steps are also steps.
[1:09 AM] jayplayco: Thanks @Justin Sun @roelandp @GuiltyParties [.com] @glory7 and the whole community for their time.
[1:09 AM] GuiltyParties [.com]: You're welcome and thank you for hosting this. All communication always helps.
[1:09 AM] glory7: @jayplayco , @Fredrikaa [Steempress] would like to say something. can you spare a min?
[1:09 AM] roelandp: thank you @jayplayco and @glory7 - Lets stay united and continue our discussions.
[1:09 AM] glory7: thank you very much for your time, @GuiltyParties [.com] and @roelandp
[1:09 AM] jayplayco: The room is now again free for chatting.
[1:10 AM] Mobbs: Boo
[1:10 AM] Justin Sun: Really appreciate your efforts
[1:10 AM] Justin Sun: @jayplayco and @glory7
[1:10 AM] jayplayco: Thanks for your time @Justin Sun
[1:10 AM] jayplayco: It is appreciated.
[1:10 AM] will_richards_ii: Thanks everyone
[1:10 AM] Fredrikaa [Steempress]: I just wanted to say that many witnesses have clear answers to many of the 4 questions asked. But it is difficult if not impossible to have 1 rep share them all. I would hope that each gets the opportunity to share their own stance on each issue.
[1:10 AM] dobartim: Thanks for this small and great steps in our communications
[1:11 AM] abdulmanan: @Justin Sun we love you Justin
[1:11 AM] flysky: Thank you all for participation great news and good positive changes
[1:11 AM] glory7: @Fredrikaa [Steempress] it would be nice to hear your opinion
[1:11 AM] Fredrikaa [Steempress]: Will I consider 1SP 1 vote:
Yes I am open to such a change, but I think reducing witness votes to 5 is a better idea. The end goal should be to reduce the control that 1 stakeholder has on consensus rules.
Will I consider reducing power down time?
Yes. I think necessary power down time should be as short as possible, but where the option is there to lock one's tokens for a longer, specified time if desired for improved security.
Will I support removing free downvotes?
Yes. But only after the SMT hardfork where different communities can have their own tokens with their own rules, and where STEEM is instead a utility token and medium of exchange between different SMTs. (As stated earlier, downvotes is currently needed to fight abuse, but if different communities can have it's own token, then other stakeholders may not need to worry about abuse in other communities they are not a part of anymore)
My stance on the freeze and property rights:
I absolutely respect private property. 22.2 was a very hard decision about one party's right to vote with their stake versus the community's right not to have their property on Steem irreversibly changed. It was a very special case, the first of it's kind in blockchain history. And I hope we can all learn from it to build a better and more secure chain going forward.
We needed an answer from Steemit, and an opportunity for Steem stakeholders to react to a significant change in the new owners plans for their use of the Steemit stake from previous owners. I will be happy to say that we will not run any fork that limits the rights or access to those funds when there is no longer a security threat to the blockchain.
