Does SafeCoin pass Mises' (narrow) Regression Theorem?

In this article it is argued that crypto-currencies do pass a different (wider) interpretation of the Regression Theorem. I think it’s interesting that SafeCoin (and incidentally Ether) may also pass the narrower interpretation that can be used to attack a crypto-currency’s status of money.

I wonder, can SafeCoin’s utility in the SAFE network be viewed as antecedental value or should it merely be viewed as a credit mechanism for using/providing digital storage, which is a function of money?

“Objective-exchange values of all other goods and services are explained by the subjective theory of value, whereby the values are traced to the ultimate subjective use values of the marginal consumers who value such goods and services for their objective-use values which they expect to consume. This is not true for money because (1) money is not consumed in its use and (2) the subjective and objective use values of money coincide and are equal to its objective-exchange value, the estimated value of the goods and services for which it can be exchanged.”

To add to the confusion, argument (1) in the quoted text is not true for SafeCoin, since SafeCoin is (at least temporarily) consumed by the network when it is used to PUT data. However, another way to look at it is to view the SAFE network as a special kind of third party, which is the owner of all absorbed/un-issued SafeCoin, in which case you could argue SafeCoin is never consumed.


Seems to me at least as good at antecedenal value as using gold for teeth, jewelry, fine electronics, etc.

Not so, I think. When used for its “antecedenal purpose” of creating network resources for a user, it is consumed in much the way gold is. When you make dentures or circuit boards with gold, you use it up. It can then be recycled by melting down and separating, much like safecoin is recycled to be farmed again. It’s not an exact match due to a slightly different time/use profile, but effectively the same–or could be viewed that way. Very little gold is totally destroyed and lost, ultimately. No safecoin is destroyed actually, unless the owner looses access to his account by death or forgotten creditentials, which of course will occur.

While gold is pretty divisible, safecoin can be divisible down to units comprising 2^64 x 2^64 total units if needed. Pretty good granularity.

The greatest bulk of the value of gold is in its acceptance as a store and transmitter of value.
Safecoin should have much better ability to store and transmit value, and while you can’t touch it like gold, it will be not only desirable but critical to one of the most important resources man will be using as time goes on.

(I may have waxed a bit eloquent beyond the question of the thread, but I couldn’t help it. I’m in love. :blush: )


You don’t use it up in the sense that it doesn’t disappear. So it’s a matter of semantics. I suppose you could say if you buy a gold coin and bury it in your backyard, you used it up.

:slight_smile: That’s all right, we’re all subjective.

This discussion reminds me of the heyday of BTC price when its price was on par with gold (1oz) and when various monetary experts claimed how it passed all criteria of sound money and rivaled gold. To me it was funny then and I don’t think it’s different now. While we can never exclude the possibility that a 100t meteorite made of pure gold will strike the Earth, it’s much more likely (not very likely per se, but relatively speaking) that any of the coins will crap out.

The scarcity of bitcoin (I won’t say anything about Safe, to make you guys feel better) is not real and IMO such comparisons are not appropriate. This has no bearing on the usefulness of the coin or idea behind it, I’m just expressing my opinion related to the troubled comparison with gold.

I think calling it critical goes a bit too far, that would imply there won’t be secure storage without MaidSafe. MaidSafe is not the only way, but it is a strong competitor.

It is possible to create gold through nuclear fusion, though for the time being the energy costs far surpass the potential profit. If humanity finds an energy resource that is so abundant that energy practically wouldn’t be scarce anymore, then that might spell the end of gold’s scarcity.

It is a botched comparison to be sure. I wouldn’t say crypto-currency scarcity is not ‘real’, but it sort of rests on the dominance of it’s network, which ultimately relies on the network effect and trust. If there are going to be clones of SAFE that are equal in size/popularity that don’t do something significantly different, I wouldn’t call SafeCoin scarce anymore either, because it is effectively indistinguishable from the copies.

I think SafeCoin is pretty safe in this regard. It’s dominant position will be secured by more than the normal network effect. The bigger the network grows, the better security and safety of data becomes. It goes beyond the normal network effect of a currency being more valuable if it is accepted by more people, SAFE copies simply offer worse data service. To stay dominant then, it’s mostly a matter of not being surpassed by a significantly better feature list.

It would, but it’d also mean the end of scarcity of nearly everything (food, medicine, beer, labor, bitcoin, etc.).

It depends how it’s done.
If everything is the same and it’s just a pure clone, then the bigger network is better. But with changes to the algorithm (PoS/PoW) smaller networks can combine PoW/PoS in ways to make them reasonably secure (say, if several telcos decide to run a network and sell access to their subscribers as part of their services, they could have several million farmers and control a commanding stake to prevent various screwups). It wouldn’t be “free” in the sense that we discuss here, but it’s not impossible and many users may find that kind of service acceptable.

Safecoin won’t actually get used up either, just recycled. As I said the metaphor is not sequentially precise, but effectively the same.

And the arguement is still pretty valid regarding Bitcoin. BTC liquidity is still very small, so volitility has been an issue. It’s still infant, but the network effect is growing. The various imperfections of Bitcoin notwithstanding, its traction is actually getting better and better. A key part of the problem with BTC is diffusion of the specie, a matter that will be neatly handled with Safecoin through farming.

It’s not that one crypto will replace gold. It’s that cryptos and network effects are changing the nature of our relationships with what we call “money.” But with network effect Bitcoin stands up fairly well as to having the key charactics of money, and I think Safecoin will set a new highwater mark in that direction.

1 Like

I hope you’re right.
While I don’t think there’s a risk of a wide ban of bitcoin (or MaidSafe for that matter), there’s still some doubt (even here on the forum people supposedly worry about that). If they can pull the plug on your gold (BTC or SAFE), then such gold is erasable.
I think we’ll find out about their attention when the first decentralized technology threatens the survival of the Matrix.
They’re already trying to make Bitcoin work for them, which means they’re not afraid at all and they’re probably right.

1 Like

They can’t really pull the plug, just like they couldn’t pull the plug on Torrents. A ban would make it a lot harder to trade fiat<->SafeCoin though.

This is obviously true when you are dealing with centralized exchanges. Is it still true once we get genuine decentralized exchanges going?

I think too much is made of the regression theorem. Basically, it says that something will not be valued for no reason, so therefore a money must be made up of something with prior value.

That’s pretty logical, but value is subjective. While some may only value a money based on an asset with prior value, it does not mean everyone will. All you need is a substantial number of of people to agree that something has value for it to be valued.


The Matrix scene with the Architect comes to mind, when he says that there are levels of existence that they would be willing to endure (or some such). That’s about the only avenue I see for the money masters: wide scale obliteration of “civilization” to keep what’s left enslaved. So, no, they really can’t pull the plug without utterly destroying their jewel-encrusted thrones. Though some may be crazy enough to do so out of spite as their empires come apart.

For anything short of that, though, the problem of trading fiat for crypto is much less a barrier for safecoin than any other crypto–i.e., safecoin will get spread very, very broadly in the population, so that centralized exchanges won’t be as necessary as with Bitcoin and the like, thus avoiding that choke-point, and thus point of control.

In fact, banning would probably just increase the popularity and usage, much like prohibition of alcohol did in the U.S., and “the war on drugs” has done everywhere in the world. Add complete anonymity to the mix, along with the fact that the SAFE Network will be THE place to go for so many other mundane reasons, and . . .

I’m also with @Traktion about the non-absoluteness of the regression theory, but even so, safecoin will be based upon a very valuable resource. The network utility plus the limited scarcity, tied to the likelihood of the SAFE network becoming ubiquitous (because it is a true technological advance) makes safecoin the petrodollar of cyberspace.

(Great slogan, btw: “Safecoin: The Petrodollar of Cyberspace!” :smiley: )