<center>![2317183342_0be0a151ac_b.jpg](https://cdn.steemitimages.com/DQmZNvKbN8r51gxZfya4xRfMe9uo8dDFqi5NRtdqrFz3egL/2317183342_0be0a151ac_b.jpg)</center>

Almost 2 weeks ago Steemit.Inc via the @steemitblog account, decided to ask all community members for [feedback]( https://steempeak.com/steem/@steemitblog/feedback-wanted-4-week-power-down),regarding the possible reduction of the currently 13 week period for a full power down , to just 4. 

What truly triggered their decision to have this talk with the rest of us all was a [proposal](https://steemit.com/@thecryptodrive/hf-proposal-vote-to-reduce-power-down-period-to-4-weeks) submitted by the witness @thecryptodrive which found great support from the very early days of its submission, and had been sitting above @gtg's return proposal quite for some time.

In [this post](https://steempeak.com/steem/@steemitblog/feedback-wanted-4-week-power-down) they explain what their approach will be. Their No1 priority has always been the safety of the blockchain and how it won't be exposed to unnecessary risks. They explain that there is not a technical difficulty for such a change and at the same time they raise awareness regarding the safety of the funds if an accounts were to be compromised.

_It's one thing to lose 1/13th of your total SP and another to lose 1/4th of it, before one can take any action ..._

In the meantime @thecryptodrive submitted a new proposal for those who want to [vote against](https://steempeak.com/steemdao/@thecryptodrive/hf-proposal-vote-against-reducing-power-down-period-to-4-weeks) the reduction of the 13 week period required for a full power down to 4.

Twelve days later, we are in a position where...

<center>![2020-02-03 22_52_24-SteemWorld ~ Worker Proposals.png](https://cdn.steemitimages.com/DQmXBpEtz1T7ehMYCMdWsL2tkfcEr3cozCMWDjeYa8CCpLa/2020-02-03%2022_52_24-SteemWorld%20~%20Worker%20Proposals.png)</center>

...both of these proposals are sitting above @gtg's return proposal. The one in favor of the reduction to 4 weeks has collected 19 mill SP and the one against it 17 mill SP through the stake based voting procedure. 

So what now?

It seems as if one proposal is cancelling the other...

### _What I am saying is that the implementation of a **downvote** button along with the already existing upvote button would have been very handy..._

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the time being the only thing one can do is to either support a proposal, or choose to ignore it. There is also a third option and that is to upvote @gtg's return proposal in order to make it difficult for someone to receive the requested funds.

In my case a vote to the return proposal wouldn't make much of a difference as my stake is pretty small to have an impact. But what if someone like @blocktrades or @theycallmedan or @smooth or anyone with a massive stake decided to choose that third option just because they feel that a certain proposal shouldn't be funded?

Probably a couple, if not more of the already great proposals that are receiving the requested funds via the DAO would end up being below the return proposal...

So now that both of these proposals have massive support...what's next?

PS. Great to see 5 proposals receiving the requested funds for further development of their projects.

PS2. Use your votes people...no voting power is wasted...and you can vote as many proposals as you want if you think they are worthy of funding...


You know the drill...drop some comments and lets talk about it.

Have a great one.
[Image Source](https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.flickr.com%2Fphotos%2Fcrystalflickr%2F2317183342&psig=AOvVaw2mxFWTet0bKJxLBMyx4tZL&ust=1580851122284000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CA0QjhxqFwoTCKCrqcCntucCFQAAAAAdAAAAABAE)
Cheers.