Will there will be halvings or similar value increasing measures like Bitcoin has?

Not exactly, but the plan is for the token emissions to start high (~10% of circulating supply in year 1), and then drop over time, meaning the supply dilution is constantly falling, rather than stepping down every few years.

I still hope MaidSafe review the plan for emissions, as it seems like a huge missed opportunity in my mind, but assuming nothing changes, that’s the plan.


I’ve been envisioning it like a seesaw, lately. There can’t ever be true equality, but something like a 10% up and down seems sane, rather than an eternally present 99%/1% that the same 1% sits on and calls it capitalism, communism, or whatever it could actually be called: insane.

(Disclaimer: I don’t possess a degree in economics. And I don’t mean to derail the thread.)

My thought on the halving question includes @DavidMc0 response but also others

The network is being built as a utility network providing services such as

  • protocols for new internet,
  • storage system that actually stores the data securely and encrypted from users to storage
  • using the new protocols for retrieval of data
  • using the protocols and storage to provide a platform for applications, including web sites and web applications to run on
  • a method of using in-network tokens to pay the network for storing the data and using resources including resources related to applications. This can include shopping etc
  • a way to transfer the in-network tokens between accounts to facilitate paying for the resources used and giving tokens to others.

It was not designed as a way or have a way to artificially increase value of the in-network token. That would happen independently of the network or its design

The emissions comes from the near original design where the network held a pool of tokens and paid operators when GET’s were done on a sort of lottery system. Payment for storing and resource usage was still there. The pool would help to keep paying nodes operators a reasonable amount when times of GETs far exceeded PUTs

But as the design went on there was a realisation that that method would be unsustainable, thus the payments for store/resources would directly pay the nodes.

The emissions are a way to keep to the ICO where the “pool” would draw down over decades. Now the emissions help to provide a smoothing of in-network token payments to nodes and thus provide similar benefits to the “pool” in the near original design, the original had no tokens at all.

Now the emissions is not some set method where approx 10% is given out in the first year. But that estimate is purely an estimate based on the estimated network growth. But if the network grows at half the estimated rate then we’d expect a much lower rate of emissions.

Obviously the hope is the value of the data store & value of token transfer (thus value of token) will increase faster than the reduction in value caused by emissions. And if crypto experience applies to the in-network token then like BTC that should happen just on worth of token for transfers alone. But the value of the data store would be a major driving force in the value of the in-network token without that.

But there is no way of knowing in the end and no one can promise anything. The network is not a financial or value transfer system but a data store and new internet system and why there is no “halving” mechanism built in.


Please correct if I am mistaken, but isn’t the current total tokens on exchange only a third of what will exist at launch (final launch in October)?

My understanding is that only ~10% of theoretical total exists on exchanges now. But at launch shareholders will get 10% (so double current tokens); and the foundation will get 10% (so triple the current tokens).

Then the issuance over the first year - assuming the growth model is correct, means another 10% …

So all up by Oct. of 2025 (one year after launch) we could see a full quartering (again assuming that growth model is correct) of current token value.

Yes approx

~10.5% for (e)MAID holders
5% reservered for shareholders
~14.5% to foundation as an initial amount for rewarding beta testers, content providers, other helpers, and future rewarding until the royalties take over the funding of future rewarding of devs, providers etc

So not exactly but approximately 1/3

If it goes to plan/estimations then approx 40% will exist by the one year mark.

It is not a quartering. The markets always new that over 15% would exist at launch and that pool supply would exist and the value will be based on that. So the value will not quarter at launch or by years end.

And the halving of bitcoin is not referring to 1/2ing the value of BTC but the amount of BTC being injected each period by mining. So quartering in the context of the topic is not correct, nor will it be correct for value of the token.


Thank you for confirming. I see I was confused about who get’s what, but overall total at launch will be ~3x what there is now.

Markets are about discovery and this happens over time --as markets are obviously composed of people who are learning. IMO, I don’t think that many are that clued into what the token’s value prop is and such is always changing in people’s minds … so I disagree with the idea that “markets always know” - especially with regard to a historical context.

I think the major issues, as regards token value, are network growth and total tokens circulating. So important for people to understand that the total token supply will essentially triple at launch and potentially quadruple a year after launch.


Just to be clear, halving does not increase value, that is pure lies by crypto influencers with large bags of a coin.

Autonmi is not some blockchain project that needs to create some artificial value.

Autonomi’s value will be the decentralized storage of data/internet and all transactions and economy it creates through people using the network, selling/buying things, transactions, buying storage and so on.

Autonomi is not BTC, it is something else and much more.


So basically. The more people use the network the more valuable the coin will be.

But if the network doesn’t grow (and doesn’t shrink) but storage hardware gets cheaper over time, then theoretically the coin value will decrease. Right?

1 Like

That is a hard one to call. When hardware gets cheaper then you get more out of the token. earning profits = (revenue - costs). If costs drop then earning profits trend upwards. If revenue drops then earning profits drop. and if both rise or drop then it depends.

But the value of the network is in the data, if there is a significant amount of data (web sites, documents, available media, etc) then people see value in the network and will store their data as well. Maybe not everyone but more people than if the network (its data) is not seen to have value. More valuable the network the more people will want to get hold of the token and this traditionally means a rise in price for the token

Some have the opinion as well that as people use the transfer of tokens from wallet to wallet, the token itself and network will grow in value too.

You’ll notice that these economics do not follow the crypto/blockchain as much as normal economics of products in the general market place. The reason being is that Autonomi is a real product proving services such as storage etc. Just like disk drives did for the home computer, but way more than disk drives.


But if hardware gets cheaper for everyone and everyone earns more profit. They will want to sell more coin and this will drive down the price, no?

Does the network always pay the same amount for lets say per megabyte retrieved? If yes then the coin will always go in value unless the network continuously grows.

What you need to know is that the more popular the network gets, the more value the coin will get. The more people will use the network to buy storage, buy/sell things, transactions, store of value and so on, the more demand for the coin and the more valuable it will be.


Yes if everyone is selling without enough buying then price drops - simple

But to happen the way you see it would means FAST drops in hardware price but the network has no time to grow in value.

The network routes the the chunk payment to the node operator chosen to store it. There is no payments for retrieval, that is supposed to be covered by earnings from storing new chunks.

The value will rise if people find value in the network, hardware will not drop that fast in price. If people find no value in storing data then the value of the token will not rise either. This is not crypto economics, but simple products economics. The complexity (if any) is because this product is more of a swiss army knife product for the internet and digital tokens


No it doesn’t. If the network has spare capacity, it pays less and if capacity is low, it pays more. I don’t know the particular ‘sweet spot’ there, but I believe that’s the general idea.

Also it’s for data stored, not retrieved.

1 Like

The plan is for year 1 emissions to equal 10% of circulating supply at Genesis (not 10% of max supply), so with 30% available at Genesis, year 1 emissions would be equal to 3% of total supply, so by end of year 1, about 33% should be in circulation.

But, in practice, the foundation’s 14.5% is unlikely to be actively circulating, so beyond beta rewards payouts & funding a few projects, much of the foundations stash is likely to be stationary for some time.

Oh, and today is my 10th year forum anniversary :birthday:


On average at any time it will. There will be records that cost more to store. As we’ve seen in testnets. Because there will be areas of the hashspace where there are fewer nodes. But the unevenness will be a lot less with a larger network. Or even not noticeable.

That’s at any one time. Over time, if more is being stored than there are new nodes for the cost to store a record will increase. That will encourage more people to run nodes. Which will then cause the cost to decrease.

I wasn’t thinking before. Yes its not 10% of the 100% of tokens but I always thought it was 10% of the 70% left or even 10% of the 49% (70% of 70%) to be used for direct emissions.

Thinking further I’d say it is 10% of the 49% and the 21% (30% of 70%) is for emissions via a different method and no timing specified on that.

So yes at the 12 month mark and if their estimates is correct then its not 10% of the 100% but more like 4.9% (10% of the 49%)

You are also correct about the foundation’s 14.5%. but by the end of 1 year I’d expect that to have been used up and in the hands of people building apps, core code, content providers, etc and in circulation. By 1 year the royalties should be enough for those payments to be made and take over from the initial amount the foundation received at genesis.

In case others don’t realise the reason the emissions reduce in %age of the 49% over time is because of the method to be used. Its like they split up XOR space into that many segments, one segment for each amount of emissions (tiny amt). And when a new chunk is stored somewhere within that segment of XOR space for the first time then the emission for that segment is given out. Thus as time progresses there is less and less available segments to have the first chunk stored somewhere into it. Its just a way to have a reducing emission rate while tying it to the rate of uploading new chunks.


Thank you for those clarifications @DavidMc0 and @neo. Good to know! :man_bowing: :man_bowing: :beer:


I calculated it from the equation they gave in the whitepaper & it’s 10% of 30%, so if all goes according to plan, there will be 33% of total supply at the end of year 1.

I’d be very surprised if the foundation use their whole stash in year 1, but they can if that seems best :slight_smile:

Isn’t it possible things changed since the white paper or is it a updated one?