Closed Poll: Should Safecoin be exclusive to the SAFE Network?

This is a TEST poll only! Poll will be closed on 6/15/14.

  • Yes
  • No
  • Maybe

Again, this is just a TEST to try out the poll functionality.

There doesn’t seem to be a time delay but we can debate the poll on this topic. I guess we could state a closing date and tally the results.

I’m thinking like 2nd life, only 3rd life being your real world life in a virtual world - think linden dollars becoming a global currency…

Sorry @Al_Kafir, I’m not following your thought process here. I don’t have any real experience with 2nd life for context though.

I noticed you can “change” your vote! Check it out. If you click on a different option, it will move your vote to the new answer.

1 Like

Cool function, but I really don’t understand the question. Flesh it out?

After 5 mins I am no longer able to edit the poll :frowning:

Yes = All transactions must include Safecoin only or micro transaction fee required.

No = Merchants are free to accept whatever currency they want. Safecoin micro transaction fee not required.

Maybe = Some services must require Safecoin only, like buying storage, voting apps. But others are optional.

Second Life is an online virtual world, developed by Linden Lab, launched on June 23, 2003. A number of free client programs, or Viewers as they are called in Second Life[1][2] are used to use the Second Life world so the users in Second Life, called Residents, can interact with each other through avatars. Residents can explore the world (known as the grid), meet other residents, socialize, participate in individual and group activities, and create and trade virtual property and services with one another. Second Life is intended for people aged 16 and over,

I actually like that. This would mean starting a proposal post for a poll first, perhaps as a wiki. We discuss it a ton and develop the poll text together. Once we are pretty sure we have it the way we want it we post the real poll with an end date/time. A poll shouldn’t be edited once it’s out there to be voted on. Last minute amendments suck :wink:

Another thing we should really focus on is limiting polls to one, and only one subject per poll.

I would definitely agree that all transactions must include Safecoin. Allowing other payment methods in lieu of could dilute safecoins value and demand. I think it would be good to allow additional coins on top of a minimum safecoin transaction fee. BTW phrasing on the poll question led me to believe that you were implying that Yes = Safecoin should only be available, used, and traded on the Safecoin network. Which I would totally disagree with. Thank you for the clarification.

I think anyone should be able to transact in their own currency. I think in order to do that though they should be forced to put Safecoin in collateral so that their currency is backed by Safecoin.

The perpetual coin/credit coin model.

Any currency can be converted into Safecoin for use on the network, small individual farmers would be able to spend what trickles into their vaults everywhere for everything on network, thereby stimulating economy. (Luckybit- A perpetual coin app could be made maybe for smart contracts etc or integrate existing protocols). Any leeway given to other alt coins is just inviting unnecessary competition. I understand Maidsafe feel it would be better to let a free market decide, however look at how free markets have evolved so far - we will have same result. We can have a much fairer whole economic system for everybody on equal footing and a much better free market economy will evolve. The value of Safecoin is then much more likely to increase rather than have substantial doubts too, at least in early days. We’d just have an automatic bureau de change app on welcome page or something.
I think paradoxically this idea will achieve all of the objectors goals, whereas opening up to other alts may not. Imagine poor villages earning a few safecoin and wanting to buy seed from the next village where the villagers need safecoin to buy tools from a further along village etc. If one of these villages down the line only accepts btc, then they are all bollocksed. Imagine this on a larger scale, opening up to other alts does not help those you mainly wish to help in regard to wider adoption. This model appears to just work better for all involved to me.
Keep the votes coming chaps…hold the front line…lol

Sorry, my option was “All transactions must be in safecoin” with no option for or so I can’t vote given the restrictive options.

Its a yes from me! I all ready put my reasons forward in the economics thread

1 Like

Even though this poll is just a TEST, some are treating it seriously. This gives me a better idea of how to setup the REAL poll in a few days. So far I found the following nominations, listed from most exclusive to least exclusive.

  1. (Safecoin only) alt coin is NOT supported.
  2. (Safecoin) + (alt coin with Safecoin transaction fee).
  3. (Safecoin) + (alt coin without Safecoin transaction fee).
  4. (Any Crypto Coin allowed), Safecoin is not required. This means Safecoin could be replaced when paying for storage via community vote.

Let me know if there are any other nominations that is not covered in the list above.

Thanks David, it all helps to iron out the wrinkles and see what kind of reaction/interest to voting there is at present. Do we need a minimum percentage of the community to vote to achieve consensus and do we have to win by a clear majority, if so, what percentage for example? Cheers

This is a hard question. I think we want to avoid a gridlock event. Using a minimum percentage would usually end up that way if there are more than 2 options. So I would say we need majority vote in most cases.

The specific conditions of a vote can be determined on a case by case basis.

IMO while voting can be useful, it can also handicap when quick decisions need to be made. One example was when Bitcoin encountered a fork, the community had to react quickly to resolve it.

Could we maybe start with 5 options and narrow it down to 2, then re-vote>

That would be a good idea.

It would help narrow it down, using 2 events.

1st Event: with as many options as possible.
2nd Event: the 2 remaining ones compete.