search

steemit / smt-whitepaper

Smart Media Tokens whitepaper
29 stars 28 forks source link

SMT vesting semantics #99

Open clayop opened 7 years ago

clayop commented 7 years ago

SMT's have similar vesting (powerup / powerdown) semantics to STEEM. In particular: SMT's can be "powered up" into a vesting balance SMT's in a vesting balance can be "powered down" over 13 weeks (controlled by hardcoded SMT_VESTING_WITHDRAW_INTERVALS, SMT_VESTING_WITHDRAW_INTERVAL_SECONDS parameters)

I am worried about this part. Most of all, there is no explicit reason why SMT should have similar vesting semantics to STEEM. If no serious technical issue exist, I would rather to see flexible parameters than hardcoded. It will give more leeway for token creators to try diverse economic systems, even the old Steem model if enough parameters are provided.

mvandeberg commented 7 years ago

What stake would you use for stake-weighted voting? Without vesting of some sort then you can vote, transfer, vote, transfer ad nauseam.

realnedscott commented 7 years ago

As long as voting rights are conferred to Vesting Stake and Power Downs take equal or longer than payout periods, then flexible vesting periods can work, I believe. There are some edge cases are vesting or payout periods reduce to very near 0 timelines that need to be considered.

Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 26, 2017, at 12:58 PM, Michael Vandeberg notifications@github.com wrote:

What stake would you use for stake-weighted voting? Without vesting of some sort then you can vote, transfer, vote, transfer ad nauseam.

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

iamsmooth commented 7 years ago

@nedsteem Agree. We have discussed this in the context of STEEM, though of course changing the rules for STEEM is a more complicated matter than for new tokens. In particular, 7-days to a one time 100% withdraw would not be exploitable in STEEM given the current payout rules as far as I can tell. (Correction: this rule would have to exclude from voting any pending request.)

Conversely token creators might want to adopt different (longer) vesting for economic or social purposes, like the earlier STEEM model of 2 years.

iamsmooth commented 7 years ago

Correction to my previous comment. The 7-day-100% rule would have exclude from voting any pending power down request. In the case of Steem Power with the current 13-week schedule, the idea was proposed to eliminate the current (though limited) exploitability by excluding the next weekly installment, which would be equivalent.

So in summary, any schedule can work with no exploitability as long as any power downs to occur within 7 days are excluded from voting.

princewahaj commented 7 years ago

After reading your conversation, I think that I will be able to implement the 2-week schedule for my SMT rather than the 13-week schedule. My ideology is a little different. I believe that people must be able to turn their investment in the liquid in shortest possible time.

It should give them a reason to invest and this action will also welcome short-term investors which ultimately contributes to the demand of overall token.

I agree with the @clayop Creators should be given the option to set those parameters and try different ecosystems.