Not required no, but I’d wager that would be the result.
1 Like
I would actually rather just see total supply reduced for network launch(probably by 1/2 or more). With divisibility of the coin we don’t need a horrendous number of them. Look at siacoin for example of a crypto with no scarcity that will likely forever have low value fiat… We should be creating tangible wealth value to early adopters as well as future holders and scarcity is a good simple way to do it. By making safe coin as accessible as water, we peasants who don’t already have hundreds of thousands of them will all just be owning the fiat equivalent of a large bucket of water potentially. Great for new users to get onboard and upload data. Bad to draw excitement to the project from investment groups and to benefit from the general growth that coins that put emphasis on fiat gains see. Ex: Bitcoin, Ethereum and so forth and their scarcity models and total coins in circulation. Coins that grow in real tangible value(what can I buy with these) to humans see the most utilization and adoption. Who woulda thunk it 
.
Ethereum is like Sia, with infinite inflation. The price only depends on whether people keep the coin or sell it, it is not directly related to inflation…
I voted no, as I think this would be a negative look for the project. Whatever happened with the decision to multiply the coin supply to a higher amount? I thought I remember the community voting to have both max coins and shares multiplied.
1 Like
I’m sure there’s an adequate revenue mechanism for the MaidSafe Foundation but have forgotten the details. I think for one it loaned MAID to MaidSafe, but recall there were other sources, maybe licensing the patents for other uses, and if not I think MaidSafe itself, being majority owned by the foundation will be an ongoing source.
Owning half of MaidSafe when MaidSafe is earning from the network through farming and building apps will be a significant income stream do I believe that’s covered.
Why should the foundation receive money through the company? What is the disadvantage of receiving part of the inflation directly?
Of course, I have no doubt that as long as David is the owner, everything will benefit the Safe Network. But nothing lasts forever, and the Safe Network is too important to have an intermediary company between the foundation and the network…
Hard to say really at this time. There is a school of thought that a perpetual block reward provides a baseline of security. Perhaps over time this thinking could become more prevalent depending on how the fee market and mining industry evolve.
1 Like
David isn’t the owner, he’s the CEO. He gave his shares to the MaidSafe Foundation in which he has no role. So my understanding is that the Foundation owns the company and gets revenue from this and from the licenses it may grant.
I don’t object to another mechanism, but for now I don’t see a problem with what we have. The Foundation - as a Scottish charity - is a good protection against the company being taken over - whereas if individual humans owned it I think it might be easier to subvert it.
8 Likes
That sounds great! @dirvine, can you confirm that the foundation owns the MaidSafe company?
1 Like
Yes, well it’s the major shareholder and as safecoin is launched any existing shareholders can get 106 safecoin per share (as of current dilution) and accepting that means their shares transfer to the foundation. So the foundation is a major shareholder and owns more as we launch. I suspect it will own 100% quite quickly. (it is designed to eat maidsafe 
)
One issue I have been looking at is the foundation as a charity, it’s great and protective but too protective. The rules are mental and it cannot do anything really with cryptocurrency or making profits (for the good). So there is a possibility we try to make it a not for profit org instead and hopefully that allows it to operate a bit more on the crazy side.
I am not a trustee of the foundation and will never make a penny from it or have any ways to get any advantage from it (tax or otherwise).
It’s all pro’s and con’s but we will see. I feel a not for profit could be good if we can work a way that there is total transparency in all the accouitng etc. Not in any crypto trades or such though as it’s too much nonsensse there.
8 Likes
Thank you for the answer!
Does this mean that it cannot buy storage space on the network with the safecoins or use part of it to increase the payment to farmers in times of need?
It’s very limited as a Scottish charity. Don’t want to get into legal issues, but if you check the charitable models then try to explain to OSCR pretty much anything out of the norm it’s all immediately suspicious to them. Probably quite rightly, but in our case it could be detrimental. What you are asking would need to be made into a proposal (explaining what all this means) to get their decision if it’s allowed based on the models they have agreed to for us (basically innovation and education and even education I had to explain to them).
Anything which looks like the Wild West will not get approval and much of what we do is.
6 Likes
I maybe not the sharpest tool in the shed but what does this mean to the initial investers who invested 6 figures long time ago.
and i really think that’s the way to go
Many investors invested at £2 £10 or £22.50 a share. So they get a chance to exchange these shares for 106 safecoins. Sort of like a constant offer from a private seller. Right now that would not be great, but as safefcoin gets over £1 which I hope it does then this buy offer gets more attractive, so from 5 to 50 times return there. If it does not then it’s no loss as it’s an offer to buy, not an instruction to.
So for existing investors this allows them an additional route to release profits, takes nothing away and costs nothing. That cannot be bad 
There is only up side in such a deal and no down side as far as I can tell.
[edit this is the investors offer of safecoin, if you mean the 2 for one in the OP then I think it’s bad for everyone actually.]
9 Likes
We have have seen Twitter, Facebook, etc etc… all censoring, manipulating polls and all… once Safe is out there and people start trusting the system , big corporations even governments and all… how much do you expect one coin to be worth by then? I guess 1 thousand coins will be enough for your retirement…!
2 Likes