You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: My etiquette rules for delegations, witness voting and power-downs
Holy shit.......... I thought this was going long and monotonous. This is good man - short, clean and simple. I like it.
Okay, lets get down to it. I know you asked to maybe share a different opinion then yours but I actually want to ask a small question.
'If the options are to delegate power to bidbots or to power down,
then "power down" is the correct choice.'
Powering down and delegation seem to me like two opposite sides of the spectrum. Can you elaborate upon your reasoning? I ask because usually the choice is between sweet or no sweet, sweet or medium sweet, etc. This feels like choosing between sweet and sour.
Please know that I ask this to develop my own understanding. By hearing your reasoning I would be able to better understand the system. I also am open to the possibility that my analogy is incomplete or misplaced in context.
The bidbots gives a steady return on invested capital with the least amount of effort.
One may achieve the same by powering down, converting the steem to other assets which can then be invested into other projects.
I didn't think it from this perspective. Thanks for clearing it man :-)
It also make me think if it be would be possible for this model to work. Person 'A' and Person 'B' are two steemians. 'A' has little time on his hands and decides find a steemian who can use some delegated SP in a better manner. So 'A' finds that is 'B' a deserving candidate and delegates him some SP with a contract that both of them will share the curation rewards.
I know this is nothing new but I am just floating an alternative option. Obviously I also recognize and respect that your rules are your own to decide.
That's legit, and it's within my rules. A considers B to be a good curator, hence the first rule is obeyed - and even though A will get some returns from B, he's not just uncritically delegating to the highest bidder, hence the second rule is also observed :-)