To be fair, the payout on Spotify is much better to what you refer to: an estimated $0.006-0.0084 per stream, which comes at about $0.001128 turnover for artists.
Not saying that is much or that I like the policy of Spotify, but it´s 10,000,000,000 times more than what you quoted.
You’re still looking at it from bitcoin perspective and that farmers are miners where any coin given elsewhere is reducing the miners cut. But its not, it works like I said, which is another way of what David has said in many places. Farmers get less from the framing==mining perspective, but this is really is different and until you factor in effects of recycling and the “extra” coin given to others is recycled you don’t see that farmers still get the same, just there is more coin cycling around on top of the farmers rewards.
[PS Remember the pie chart showing farmers get 60/70% of a static pie chart of the coins, that is where it was said farmers don’t get as much. Yet that view was shown to be inaccurate because of recycling.]
Actually if the whitepaper is correct in its take on the scarcity==more $$ per coin then the farmers will earn more more quickly than if the extra coin is not given out (assumption that some is hoarded at least for a time)
I too thought that the PtP and APPs and core devs incentives would increase PUT costs by at least a couple of percent, but after reading the whitepaper and RFC and doing some preliminary modelling I realised that I was still viewing coin economics from a farming=mining perspective, even though I realised it was not the same in coin generation.
Yes and also think of how a very very small PUT price increase for us could make such a crazy huge impact for PtP rewards in the 3rd world.
We’re changing the world here!! And attracting new knowledge from the furthest reaches of the planet!!
(I remember being able to buy so many things, toys, candies, etc for only 1 shilling (0.77¢!!) back when I lived in Nairobi. SAFE micro PtP payments won’t hurt our pocketbook at all but will make an unbelievably powerful impact in developing countries… I’d be as bold as to say you guys have NO IDEA how poor the other billions of people out there are! #ptp4africa)
Nice catch, I was just putting numbers, but not qualifying etc. Good to get real figures, I read of some artist recently who got very bad returns but could not remember the numbers, so cheers for the clarification here, much appreciated.
is that 12 thousand dollars or 12 dollars. I’d hope it was 12 thousand.
At 12,359 dollars for 168 million streams means 7.7 milli cents ($0.00007724375)
Is that correct? or was it 12 dollars.
And then Spotify pays more at $0.001128 ave per stream.
Trying to get a handle on all this. So is it the difference in providers, or is the difference in payments depending on the artist. So its more like an average of $0.001128, with “99% of artists share 23% of global revenue >> 1% share 77% of total artist revenue” so that the few reap much better payments than the $0.001128 and the majority getting between (less than) $0.000077 to $0.001128.
Or something different?
$12.359 Thousand
mind you think plenty of records companies / middle men would still be 
at have to give creators $12
Maybe I don’t understand or maybe my thinking is far too simplistic but I think that people having to pay to put content up is retarded. App developers should be the ones paying, similar to how website owners and developers pay for hosting.
Well, What is the difference between putting up content and being a website owner? Really it is the same idea. You have something you want to share, and you put it up on a network where your audience has the opportunity to retrieve it on demand.
This isn’t free – It costs resources. If you are filling Farmern’s drives with chunks, there is a cost to that.
There is a difference. And maybe Its semantics, but I think we should discuss it because it is important.
I think were SAFE in general (all of us) are greying the line between white and black is in our assumptions. Let me explain…
I believe the critical topic we are all forgetting is that we are discussing two separate entities.
CONTENT CREATORS (producers)
&
APP CREATORS / WEBSITE DEVELOPERS
Both are uploading data to the network.
The app developers uploads his website and files and the content creator uploads his content.
But the difference is the relationship between these two entities and I think we are kind of forgetting that, or are we?
Are we saying that the app developer gets charged for all uploads, even the ones made by his website users that are creating content.
Or are we saying that the app developer only gets charged for his uploads and the content producer gets charge separately for his content uploads?
If something takes up space it costs. Period.
Hard drive space, bandwidth CPU time, etc. If it costs, it needs to be paid, or the network will fail economically.
Uploading naturally would cost more than downloading. Downloading only costs bandwidth. Uploading costs bandwidth and disk space. On SAFE, that Disk space if forever, so it is more expensive than disk space where deletion is possible.
It is possible to not charge if you expect to make the money back another way. But what is that?
If the APP is designed to upload data and “own” it then it pays and any PtP address can be either APPs or supplier
If the APP facilitates the upload the uploader pays and “owns” the data & any PtP addresses is theirs.
I concur. This would have practical implications beyond just PtP as well.
Well, yes, but I think we are discussing a token issue, not a value issue. If in case (A) as a farmer I receive 100 SFC where the amount of cycling SFC is 1000 then the value is different as in case (B) where I still receive 100SFC where the amount of cycling SFC is 1100. What am I missing?
Maybe we need a flowchart.
Yeah that’s what I thought. So in that sense it operates exactly like the current web.
My younger brother is a music artist.
His BeatPort & SoundCloud.
Asked him for his thoughts and he pretty much said he’d be happy to be charged by the network or the app (whichever) to upload his music if he was given the chance to sell that music by some form of easy instant payment method to users directly.
He explained the process is a pain in the ass because there are so many middle men, fees, charges, agents etc. He said if each download (or equivalent) equated cost even 30 cents and if he received those funds directly he’d at least be able to do what he does part time which would mean that he would end up producing more music and bigger hits and eventually take his craft full time. He currently works in a factory full time.
Thats all he really said apart from the fact that he pays a premium membership for SoundCloud and artists have to be signed with labels to even be able to use BeatPort.
Why would you think the network would be able to generate him 30 cents a download?
How?
Like I said, the Cloud computing industry is about the same size as the recording industry, so if we win all of the business there is to be won, 10 or even 20 percent is going to be pretty insignificant.
Everyone thinks this is a great idea because it sounds like a great idea, but I just see no math to back up anyone’s dream. If the money isn’t there, it isn’t there. The value being given away has to come from someplace or it isn’t really value - Just funny money…
He didn’t say the network had to pay him, just that the network has to enable easy, direct payment. SafeCoin already does that without PtP. I didn’t read that post as advocating PtP.
I too would like to see some decent analysis, but it would still not really answer the question - it would advance the debate, and maybe help us to refine the initial approach. But only testing can answer these questions.
I think there is a tendency in these debates to only see that which supports one’s gut, or one’s stated position, which is why I’d like to see more opinions backed up by analysis. I think it would show that they are mostly opinion and speculation. The reason we don’t have decent analysis is of course because it’s damned hard to do well, and more easily picked apart than built on and extended.
In the absence of that, the rational approach seems to me to be keeping an open mind while getting some hard data: by forming plans to test things out in ways that don’t delay or harm the project.
It’s striking how many people want to kill this off based only on conjecture, when if it were to make uploading attractive, it could enormously increase the usefulness and adoption of SAFEnetwork.
Something like this could be the killer app needed to reach mass adoption, and get us to internet 2. So I think we should work hard to see if we can make it work rather than see who can come up with the biggest list of “why” or “why not” to do it, and not give up too easily. Let us find out.
That’s reasonable, the network needs to be running first anyway before any scheme is added. Then, as @dyamanaka said, you implement wallet marking because all proposals use it. After that getting tip to work is a no brainer, maybe it’s just a plugin at first… Then, even if I dislike it, the reward on Get will be tried and I think it is David’s prerogative to give it a shot, it’s a once in a life time opportunity and I don’t think any argument will be strong enough to change anyone’s mind on the subject. At last, when we realize it doesn’t quite work well for most people, micropaywalls and the reward on Put will be implemented and the first real digital economy will emerge 
.
As you said, let’s just keep an open mind and really, objectively, analyze the data when we get them and take decision accordingly.
All of the stats I see say that the content is worth more than the network. That is why people want to support the content so much.
But if the content is worth more than the network, then logic follows that the network is going to be totally inadequate to pay for content. Especially after paying it’s own bills.
PtP has put the cart in front of the horse. Because the SAFE network is imaginary at this point, it is easy to believe it will do anything we wish it where to do. But the truth is that even it if took over all of the business that is out there now, it’s revenue would be vastly inadequate to do what people imagine it could. Because the smaller thing cannot buy out the bigger thing.
Like I have said before paying for Apps would make a huge difference – Paying for content as a whole slices up an already too small pie way to thin…
It shouldn’t take testing to figure this out. The math is the math, and unless the industry stats I see are totally wrong It just won’t even come slightly close to being competitive…