📌 Let's Learn from John McAfee: Allow the transfer of Steem Power ownership
Note: I drew some portions from my previous article on this subject
@andrewdemeter 's recent article describing a conversation with John McAfee provided further evidence for the need to ease Vest liquidation.
Vests (Steem Power)
Vests represent a share in a portion of Steem held in reserve.
This reserve is funded uniquely with newly mined coins.
This means Vest disbursements are not reliant on external money.
Thus, Steem's economic model does not rely on the transfer of Vest ownership being impossible i.e. the unique transfer of Vest ownership, without an account sale
Vest liquidation to Steem could still be stretched over 104 weeks.
There is no economic advantage to preventing users from transferring a Vest ownership title.
These titles could indeed be traded.But this would only have an effect on the currency used to trade it (probably BTC).
So the effect on Steem would probably be fairly negligible.
Sybil account risk
Non existent.
A title transfer would be recorded on the blockchain, so it'd be a trivial matter to track the source of the Sybil accounts - so that a Sybil that intends to be successful would simply purchase an account sufficiently-stocked with SP, which he can already do at present.
Disagree. The illiquidity of SP is the thing that protects the steemit model from dumping by whales. The reason the steem market cap is high enough to bring real money to these posts. SP should stay account locked. Liquidity should continue to come from SMD conversions and paced powering down. The system is well designed. Don't break it.
It's good that it's hard to buy too much SP.
Indeed.
But I'm advocating that they allow Vest title transfers. E.g. satire own 100 Vests, transfer to @ryan-singer for 0.1 BTC or whatever
This would prevent dumping. And make SP more liquid.
It would be abused by whales buying their own SP into accounts with 100% voting power. But you knew that already.
In that case, liquidation could take as long as it would take for voting power to regenerate from a particular %, to discourage it.
That would do nothing to stop them from abusing the new voting power
I can't reply to @matrixdweller ... but it would be trivial to make it so that voting power is weighted based on current voting power of either account and steem power.
This would eliminate the abuse that you readily point out.
take one account upvote 5 accounts send SP to new account with 100% voting power repeat all day Steemit ded
Not if you put a 12-hour waiting period on it. Like with SBD.
@complexring good point I can't see why not then. Would you have to Pay BTC or would that be optional. Would I be able to get my vests from my whale crushed account @jillstein2016 ? There are reasons to support this idea.
nice post
I agree. I don't think 'preventing whales from dumping steem' is a good enough reason to lock SP up for 2 years.
Great post! :)
Transferring of vests must be done since even its to hard to curate current state to satisfy users. For now, it's just whales game and they do all the curation, we poor ones just do shit at curating. Even distribution of steempower would mean fairer votes and would bring up the quality of platform up. I don't even need it to be transferred I just need stronger steempower up to a point my vote means something. Otherwise, it's useless for me to curate content and for a majority of users. Dilution of steempower through platform would mean health for a platform (and it would need to be short one). As a consequence of that, there would be even more inflation of steem, which would surely drop down the price of steem since no one would need to buy it.
This brings next problem in perspective. New users that would come would again be powerless and there would be new dilution interval and so on.
Best case scenario would be to come to the distribution that equals to gauss function, on the sides are users with most and least with SP currently in the middle are ones that are in the middle now, where they now have the most power to vote and after that have a fresh start.
That power can stay in ownership with the current owner but should be transferred to those that are most productive to shape this space and later returned.
Furthermore, that would mean that those that are making content would again have the most power and not those that vote right, but would certainly help the situation because this is meant to be content creation platform, not just ownership or money platform.
My only concern about forced illiquidity is that it is strikingly similar to IPO lockup periods, and I have seen more than once, the price of a stock flat line once the period is up and people are able to cash out. Time will tell though.
Good point