While I hear that forcing people to stay invested is a prison sentence I like to think of it more like a defensive mechanism. It's a safety precaution for the chain. It's like a moat or a big wall.

This is one of the reasons steem is failing, IMO.
One of several.
(I'm no longer bothered one way or another by the mechanics and time involved of powering down)

I'm not sure how you circle the square here.
On one hand Steem is selling decentrlaization and independence, then on the other hand expressing 'we will do what we think is best for you. It's for your own good'
It doesn't work that way.

Inconsistency in a philosophy is not a good.

You are a witness, and forgoing any possibility of corruption (which I also doubt, as I have never seen it NOT occur, not when money is involved), it still means 20 people have the ultimate decision making power over, lets say, 15,000 active users.

Its the way it is, but trying to attract investors (without any nepotism or anything), is a game best played with logical and philosophical consistency.

On that basis, you would have to say, the shorter powering down period the better.

Let adults be adults - grown ups have no wish for a nanny state to decide for them.
And adults do not want others to decide for them, on how to conduct their own finances.

(....which gets me close to the other fundamental flaws in steem...But I ain't going there).