Actually, there is a simple mistake here 
, that’s why we see 93.333 % as start. It should say slightly more than 85 % at start. I didn’t check that number as I thought it was due to initial uploads, but far from it 
.
I fixed it and ran again, and placed in a new sheet in the excel. The previous is kept (called Faulty) for reference.
OK, so that’s good, because these results are better, I was a little bit confused and concerned about that ratio. There was not much changed in the results, other than the unfarmed percent being down to 83.37 % after 10 years now.
(I updated the post above with the correct data, as to minimize confusion for readers. Also including the requested data on rewards issued.).
Here are the updated graphs, including data about total paid and total farmed, as well as a chart for a single vault (of 500GB) revenue per day for the first 30 days. (Complete data is found in the excel).
So, It starts out with 15 % from ICO (I don’t have the details but it seems there were some additional 5 % issued). So, we start at 85 % unfarmed. Then the 5k users upload their 100Gb worth of data, at a starting price of almost 0.09 safecoin per GB (which is due to _chunksPerSafeCoin initialised to 11134 nanos, which is a value I exctracted from the poll here on the forum, on what users are prepared to pay per GB for their first data on the network).
A vault that joins on day one, will earn about 2416 safecoins / TB over 10 years (of which 2/3 is earned the first 30 days).
I also think that the reward rate seems a bit low, mostly because we only net farm 1.63 % of all safecoins during first 10 years (with a very low population though).
I don’t know what would be a desirable rate, but since the rate of net farming would supposedly decline as we get closer to 50 %, it seems we can allow for a bit speedier initial issuance. While that might affect inflation, it also would motivate farmers to join I think?
If we consider the C / R ratio an indicator of how cheap storage is, it would perhaps also indicate that storage is even cheaper initially, which would presumably also attract more data uploads. (Not entirely sure about that assumption, i.e. the C / R ratio as indicator of how cheap storage is, as we also increased inflation, but that is how the market is modeled here anyway).
So, I’m just going to guesstimate a desired net issuance of 10-20 % in 10 years? The next 10-20 % might take 20 years.
Another thing is that I wonder if we really need 50 % unfarmed considering the scarcity and the declining farming rewards. 10 % might be plenty good buffer for the network (as per the proposal by Seneca) - or maybe 20 %. But 50 % seems too much I think.
It might. I was actually going to try that idea out later, as it was also mentioned by @digipl already back in 2015: Safecoin VS SAFE Storage - #31 by digipl, and again in the same topic as Senecas store cost idea Early demand, and effect on storage costs, after launch - #34 by digipl making the point that the two ideas are actually similar.
I’m not sure though if we will be able to implement it that way. This part … :
H = average holding time per coin before making a transaction
… seems like it could be a bit tricky to track.