> I don't agree we are doing that. IMO we are thinking about what could break and concluding that nothing would. In part we are also looking around and seeing what several hundred other active blockchain projects are doing and seeing that they do just fine without months of lockup in the base layer.

I don't mind the reduction of power-down if it comes with a dynamic model and increased the incentive to lock it up longer.

> Yes, I was suggesting that it perhaps be changed to work in a more useful way since the existing feature is almost unused. Again, an experiment which failed, so we should move on and try something else.

The only thing that failed is a model with a fixed time of 3 days, which is just not dynamic enough. Imagine you could set whatever time you want, maybe with a hard-cap of 1 year or so. You could go as low as 1 hour or 3 hours, if you're a business who is doing some kind of escrow job or maybe 7 days, depending on your needs.

> I don't agree we are doing that. IMO we are thinking about what could break and concluding that nothing would. In part we are also looking around and seeing what several hundred other active blockchain projects are doing and seeing that they do just fine without months of lockup in the base layer.

You mean what they're not doing. Am I that crazy for thinking that a dynamic lockup with higher APR will incentivize more people to lock-up their Steem? Who else got that kind of a system? Pretty much no other blockchain AFAIK.