Discussing percentages with respect to farmers is misleading because what farmers receive is completely unrelated to the percentages being talked about.
Farmers get rewarded based only on what the network calculates is needed to ensure there is enough capacity to meet demand.
The only meaningful way to discuss farmers’ rewards as a percentage is to always call it 100%, so that you can then discuss other rewards in relation to that.
So you can say, for example, app devs should get 10% relative to farmers, but this doesn’t change what farmers will get. So rather than meaning you’ve made a 90 / 10 split, you’ve actually caused the total rewards being paid to increase by 10%. Farmer still gets the same absolute amount, but now app devs will receive am amount equal to one tenth what farmers are getting.
It lead you to say you don’t think farmers need 90%, which makes no sense. Farmers will get what they need, regardless of what other rewards are allocated.
Maybe it’s clearer this way: farmers get X, where X is determined by an algorithm based on spare storage capacity. If devs get 10% of what farmers get, that means the network pays X to farmers and 1.1 X to devs.
Saying farmers should get less in a thread which is really about working out how much others should get is misleading - because it implies there is a fixed amount of rewards that are then divided up between the various participants. That is not the case.
Farmers will always get 100 percent of what farmers make. Devs get 10. Some folks want content makers to get 10 as well.
So that is 120% of what farmers make that needs to come in.
Most people are concerned about what a PUT costs. 100 percent of the PUT revenue will not go to the farmers. Either 83.3% or 90.9% will. Or perhaps we will re-think the whole thing…
The amount artists need to make is totally unrelated to the cost of farming. Thus this is a very bad tool for paying them correctly.
All in all I say it’s semantics. PUTs -Farming frees - Dev fees - content creator fees >= 0 or the writing is on the wall.
if we do decide this feature will be hard coded from the get go, we need to be careful about how we do this and weather the mathematics add up. I would love to say it would work like a dream, maybe it would but Its hard to say for certain. I do not know yet. There are way too many variables to consider. On the beta launch it will be a lot easier to conduct analysis and come conclusions.
So who exactly will be earning this income. It many people copy a viral video, then they can only earn income from the (copied) video they upload. So if 500 people upload a copied viral video then that income from the viral video is split between the 500 (not evenly obviously) If 5000 do it then they expect less. But remember that those 5000 paid to upload.
If it takes like 10,000 views of a video to return the cost of upload and 500 people upload then it will take 5,000,000 views to start “costing the network” But if it is getting that many views then how many others will also upload it. It seems that the viral video may cost a lot more for the hopefuls than the network pays out to them collectively.
Remember all the people uploading paid to upload. A viral video will be cached real quick, so not much in farmer rewards.
Remember that browsers will be able to access both SAFE and normal internet at the same time. So if a video is viral on youtube and shared around social media why oh why would people viral something that was copied onto SAFE, all the 10,000’s of links are to youtube. Unless of course you created the vid and started the sharing.
For quite a while though the %age of people on SAFE compared to the people not using SAFE (think sheeple) is going to be too large (even 50-50 is too large) and lets face it the people who love spreading those viral vids of kittens etc are not going to be in the 1st half of people installing SAFE. (exceptions will only prove the rule)
Yes you might hit a winner but tell me honestly can you say that any “viral” video copied on to SAFE will be able to compete view wise to youtube and social media mentality
The farming incentive is excellent. Farming is something people’s computers will do automatically. Farming is not about creativity (except for hackers trying to modify the farming software). If safecoin becomes a successful cryptocurrency farming will become very popular and thereby secure the SAFE network.
Paying safecoins to content makers and app developers on the other hand is similar to using ads to monetize the same things. And look at how money sucks as an incentive for creativity on the internet. Uploading copied YouTube videos and then putting ads on them is not exactly what I would call creative. Or people getting payed for posting on Facebook, following people on Twitter, clicking on ads or voting on reddit. That’s the kind of activities incentivized by money when it comes to end users. Creative work is actually discouraged by money and forced into a broad mainstream consumer category.
If safecoin becomes a popular cryptocurrency many people will start farming. And farming can’t be abused. Earning safecoins for content and apps can be abused a lot.
To simplify it, my main point is that there are two different incentives: 1) farming reward, and 2) content/app reward. And the farming reward is a good incentive making the network more secure. And the content/app reward is a bad incentive making the network more prone to being abused.
I mean that once a computer has been setup for farming it will keep running by itself. The same can be said about content, but to start farming you only need to install the farming software (should be made very easy, like installing a Chrome browser). To produce content or apps requires a lot of creative work.
I actually like the idea that content makers and app developers are payed safecoins automatically by the network, but when I look at it overall it seems detrimental rather than beneficial. It’s probably better to have content and apps be supported by donations. It will be very easy for end users to donate safecoins on the SAFE network! And that prevents abuse.
In your point of view, compare (list the similarities) and contrast (list the differences) between content and apps as they are seen by the core network.