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

[dyamanaka]

Exactly,

In your case, your can provide your own storage (minus the free amount) so you don’t have to pay for your 20TB of data, and if you have extra space that is not being used, then you can also earn Safecoin in the process. Other large storage users might do this as well. If you ever need that data again, you can pay in Safecoin for the retrieval via GET requests.

It actually makes more sense since the Network is paying farmers in Safecoin for GETS, why not charge Safecoin from GET requests? The relationship is tied correctly. This applies to all apps on the Network as well.

[fergish]

@Al_Kafir

No, its fine, its just that I’m totally unconvinced that Safecoin will gain value despite all the reasons given Safecoin’s use to buy resources is an ever decreasing value because resources are 30% cheaper each year (resource cost is same whatever currency you buy it in.) Limiting/linking buying resource to Safecoin is the problem in my view. You can’t say Safecoin derives value from being the only coin able to buy resource because it just doesn’t. Its like saying because the only way to pay an ever decreasing peppercorn rent is by using “peppercoin” - its a very limited use

The price, in safecoin, for a certain amount of resource (say storage) will not be fixed. One safecoin might buy 10gb today and 10tb a year from now. But since you’ll be exchanging for a SAFE network property (storage), it will have to be paid for in the currency of the network (safecoin). The right to that property will be transferred on the SAFE network at a core level. This will require safecoin, I think. That’s how I see it anyway.

Now that I think of it, though, there’s another angle. If you can sell a POR property you own, you should be able to give it away as well, at 0 price. So, I guess there could be an exchange set up that would allow you to give it to someone, after they gave you a certain amount of bitcoin or whatever. This starts getting more complex because, as I said, the transfer of the resource takes place on the SAFE Network at a very basic level.

We probably won’t be able (or want) to prevent people from trading bitcoin, et al, for SAFE network resource (e.g., higher storage cap), but I think such an exchange would be awkward and would lose out to a Resource/safecoin exchange any day.

[quote=“Al_Kafir, post:35, topic:435”]

I am also still, despite it being explained many times unable to see how Safecoin is even related to resources in any meaningful way. I’m left with the feeling that square pegs are trying to be fitted into round holes to be honest. Resource price and Safecoin price are unrelated and both prices have to be arrived at by human trading, not network algorithms in my opinion.[/quote]

I agree completely, now, that no algorithm can be counted upon to set the price. It has to be humans. And I agree that the safecoin and resource price are unrelated, except as above, in that safecoin will best facilitate the transaction.

As far as the use and utility of safecoin: Look at bitcoin, for instance. Bitcoin is a scarce digital phenomenon which has come up in value due to its network properties. Safecoin will follow a similar curve, but I think it has a lot great qualities that bitcoin doesn’t. It has value also because it is created by a network as a byproduct of doing USEFUL work, i.e., storing and managing the worlds data and communications. So it actually derives from a fundamentally valuable resource. Better than gold, I’d say.

That’s not to dis bitcoin. It’s great and has some attributes that safecoin won’t have inherently.

[fergish]

@dyamanaka

Because of this new payment method, ANY usage on the SAFE Network will require Safecoin. The only way to gaining extra storage is to provide your own. Merchants can still sell their products/services using other currencies but Safecoin is now semi-exclusive to the Network.

There’s a lot to like about the model you’ve laid out. I’d be interested to see how implementable it is, though.

[Al_Kafir]

@russell

Safecoin will have first mover advantage, but there’s no way to stop people from developing things for it that devalue Safecoin.

I don’t see any first mover advantage - that would be BTC or the dollar and your second line illustrates my point.

[Al_Kafir]

@fergish

The price, in safecoin, for a certain amount of resource (say storage) will not be fixed. One safecoin might buy 10gb today and 10tb a year from now.

The same could be said for the dollar or BTC, the resource costs the same whatever you pay with - therefore up to this point can you agree that Safecoin does not have any advantage or added value other than the (arguably negligible) advantage of being the token used to pay the ever decreasing network rent effectively
Actually to try and pinpoint what I’m missing, is there any chance someone could comment/correct me on any of the following short statements. Cheers

1. Safecoin price is not related to resource value
2. Resource value is market led and not related to Safecoin value
3. Safecoin value is market led and is not related to resource value
4. Safecoin value and resource value are arrived at differently
5. Primarily, resource price has to be comparable with competitors
6. Safecoin price is derived from the perceived value in its utility
7. Safecoin price can be volatile,
8. Resource price is inexorably falling at a predictable 30% annual rate
9. One is an apple, the other an orange
10. Resource price is the same whatever currency pays for it
11. There is no inherent value to Safecoin over any other currency other than its perceived future utility
12. Safecoins future utility is in its exclusive use to purchase resources
13. See 8 and 10
14. Other currencies can compete with Safecoin for all other uses
15. Builders will likely prefer to be paid in BTC, all other things being equal (which they appear to be)
16. Future utility remains only in the value of the resource, which will be the same for dollars or BTC as Safecoin –no advantage, no value
17. I estimated you’d need around a quarter million 500 gig harddrives/users at launch – am I way off

[russell]

@Al_Kafir, I’m just not sure what exactly you want to hear. “Sorry?” “It is what it is?”

I have to deal with the film industry on the verge of being torn down because of the openness of these kind of networks. You’re going to have to deal with some competing cryptocurrencies for the same reason, I guess, because it’s impossible to stop.

[Al_Kafir]

@Al_Kafir

Actually to try and pinpoint what I’m missing, is there any chance someone could comment/correct me on any of the following short statements. Cheers

[quote=“russell, post:46, topic:435”]
I’m just not sure what exactly you want to hear. “Sorry?” “It is what it is?”
[/quote].

I must say that the replies I have been given to anything I’ve asked have either been completely ignored, been less than coherent or even address completely different things. I do have an opinion on how successful the Safecoin/resource pricing formula is likely to be and how things are probably going to play out I haven’t been given any information to sway my views so. I’ll just have to act according to what conflicted, confusing and apparently unworkable plans/details I have been given . Investors will make their own minds up on how clear and feasible everything as presented sounds and I’m bored of repeating myself and going round in circles tbh, as I’m sure others are too. Anyway, I won’t waste any more of anybody’s time asking any more questions as quite evidently this has not been fruitful

Good luck guys, I hope you manage to work things out, I really do…

[russell]

My fault, totally my fault. A bit aggressive. I felt like we were slamming into a concrete wall over and over, and I was frustrated. My apologies.

[fergish]

I had a frustrated response similar to @russell, but got over it. Here’s my best shot.

Safecoin price is not related to resource value True

Resource value is market led and not related to Safecoin value True

Safecoin value is market led and is not related to resource value True

Safecoin value and resource value are arrived at differently True; safecoin is useless otherwise

Primarily, resource price has to be comparable with competitors Fairly true, though other attributes of the network should make it appealing, even if more, though I doubt it will be, and is likely to be MUCH less

Safecoin price is derived from the perceived value in its utility True

Safecoin price can be volatile, True

Resource price is inexorably falling at a predictable 30% annual rate S/g like that

One is an apple, the other an orange Absolutely, though they are both the fruit of the SAFE network and thus have an easier interaction than currencies outside the system.

Resource price is the same whatever currency pays for it True

There is no inherent value to Safecoin over any other currency other than its perceived future utility Yes, currently it has no value whatsoever, other than perceived future. If the utility is a projected, though, it will certainly have additional utility (beyond anything else in existence currently, in some aspects, at least)

Safecoins future utility is in its exclusive use to purchase resources Absolutely NOT true. It’s utility is in its anonymity, transaction velocity, easy interactivity with the rest of the SAFE network, to name a few additional utilities. It is actually not even necessarily required to acquire resources. I can think of a few ways to accomplish such trades, depending on how the network is ultimately configured

See 8 and 10 No idea what you’re talking about here

Other currencies can compete with Safecoin for all other uses Perhaps, but none will be integral to the network, so many things should be possible with safecoin which aren’t so doable with others. (Just projection at this point)

Builders will likely prefer to be paid in BTC, all other things being equal (which they appear to be) I doubt it. And if they want BTC they can trade the safecoin that they will be paid in for it. I have no idea why you would make this assumption. A builder is someone who will be/is vested in the SAFE network and working to improve it. I’d wager to say that anyone doing that also sees the utility and future of safecoin, whether warranted or not.

Future utility remains only in the value of the resource, which will be the same for dollars or BTC as Safecoin –no advantage, no value Again, absolutely not, for the same reason as above.

I estimated you’d need around a quarter million 500 gig harddrives/users at launch – am I way off I have absolutely no idea. I’m prepared to provide at least 5 gig (probably more) myself immediately, so I don’t think that 500 gig is a hard goal to imagine reaching to start. Could go even higher, but don’t know why it couldn’t work at some lower number, either.

[john_seale]

@dyamanaka

Just like the dollar has the reserve status, Safecoin is the reserve currency on the SAFE Network.

I apologise for this late intrusion to this essential aspect of the SAFE network and I hope some perceive value in the following concept which is the core of my proposed app to run on the SAFE network.
I 100% agree that SAFEcoin is the reserve currency for access to and use of the SAFE network. That said I also consider SAFEcoin to have utility for use in trade of minor goods and services on the SAFE network. However for major trade whether global or local I believe it essential for buyers and sellers of commodities, currencies, products and services to be free to offer their wares for any currency or range of currecies inluding a new denationalised currency for use in my conception. In the case of the app I have planned for a module where all such currencies can be offered and purchaced. My plan also provides a facility whereby its users earn credits when they sell something of value, other than SAFE network facilities, and other users who buy something of value redeem their credits. These credits are called “negotiable trade credits” (NTC). NTC can be purchaced from my conception for allocated gold bullion which becomes the property of all users of my conception. Obviously users of this facility will comprise mints and dealers/vaulting services for gold bullion. This is the method an exchange without risk as it purely market driven and also the way in which a fiat currency flight can be absorbed in the event of a fiat currency contagion.

[Panda]

One argument i’m not seeing after skimming through the last posts here is the fact that SafeCoins are (at least in theory) infinitely more privacy friendly than Bitcoin or any other alternative currency as of now. That has value and in combination with the synergy of every app and service on Safenet accepting Safecoin that will create a steady demand.

People fail to realize how little is needed to make a coin worth a lot. Take Btc for example, lots of people are using them simply for the protocol. In other words they are buying Bitcoins for then to buy a service a few minutes later and that service may or may not exchange the Bitcoins back to USD. Volume & depth

So based on this we can assume that if the safenetwork becomes popular then as a direct consequence Safecoins will be worth a lot more. And I haven’t even taken into consideration the fact that the networks main attribute (storage) is directly reliant on Safecoins.

And may I also add that there are NO transaction costs associated with Safecoin (at least last time I read up on it)… So essentially Safecoin at this present moment appears by anoyone who looks at it critically as the most privacy friendly and frictionless crypto currency there is.

Drops mic, walks off