I don’t think you make that much from that. Most people would never dare watch it. So ISIS wouldn’t make that much.
furthermore, The default network rewards won’t be anything compared to the tipping / donation economy built on top of it too, so ISIS really wouldn’t make much compared to actual, viral videos, with huuuuge followings of deeply invested fans.
Lol so ppl please stop bringing up this example and getting worried about it
Yes, This is the major problem I have with the whole thing.
Why bother?
Complexity, Inaccuracy, cheap sales pitch. insignificance. All to keep some people happy who counted chickens before they hatched.
10% of the network proceeds could revolutionize open source software and their funding models, but if you cut the pie so thin that you pay for every piece of content anyone produced, you wind up paying everyone an unnoticeable insignificant nothing of an amount. For what exactly? Because we can?
So is there a curve between the two pictures? What does the plan to adjust to what reality throws out look like. There is the forking but what else? And its not slices of nothing if its hit the global population.
So artists etc can have a guaranteed source of stable income they can plan for, expect, budget for, count on & survive on, based on their following. This is extremely important.
People will be pegging their whole lives on this income, and if someone has a real talent, they shouldn’t have to leave their entire livelihood up to random chance donations!! That would be horrible!!
And it’s not complex at all, man. It’s more complex for the network to try to distinguish between apps and other sorts of data (especially websites, etc)
Read this.
Yes, But you just said it would be insignificant.
And it will be.
If you take 10% of the income of the network and split it a million ways, amongst people who already paid 100% It is going to take being massively popular to even make a dent.
It’s a false promise. Like you said, it is insignificant compared to tipping, and tipping never pays the bills.
I’d like to see a more detailed analysis than this from you. I see some logic here, but it doesn’t seem to stack up so if you really believe this is how it adds up, let’s see some modelling! For example, come up with some formulae to express what you have here, then drop in some sample numbers.
We can then debate the formulae, try different numbers, and see what drops out. I’m not saying you’re wrong - I don’t know either way - so I’d love to see someone with a good analytical head try to model this.
And then also test the different numbers on a live network asap
You need to have a bigger picture view; future trends are that cost of living becomes much cheaper over time (just look at tech like solar, 3d printing houses, more decentralization of everything & greater self-sufficiency) so yeah that amount might not pay for the crazy rent prices etc of today…
BUT THEY WILL FOR TOMORROW (future)
Gotta have a bigger scope of vision
We need a future-proof SAFE
Think big, look forward
“Hey, You may me 10 dollars, and If people like what you do, I might give you a buck or two back”
Sound like a great deal?
Lets put it this way… “Upload your content to SAFE, and if it is popular the network will reward you”.
Wow, who wouldn’t sign up for that deal?
More or less it is the same deal. Yes, there might be a few outliers 100 or 1000 times as popular as your average uploader that could make a decent living on it. But they are probably quite talented, and could make a ton more using traditional methods. And they are making their money by taking the buck rebate from the average joe.
And this ignores the issues of filesize etc.
SAFE is a massive experiment. Adding a massive economic experiment on top of a massive technical experiment is doubling down the risk. SAFE ought to be fiscally conservative until it is established and strong. All of this PtP stuff sounds like a big greedy money grab to me. And there is no money to go around that isn’t taken from the users, making SAFE more expensive and competitors more attractive.
PtDeveloper was intended to make SAFE more competitive by creating a infrastructure where open source SAFE apps could be supported. Much better deal. Those would make SAFE competitive and would reduce the appeal of the competition. 10% would make a huge difference spread amongst that one community. It will make very little difference spread over the Entity of the SAFE userbase. It cuts the pie too thin.
Enough words. Show math! 
How hard is it? 10% rebate, distributed amongst everybody that pays to upload…
Would you subscribe to an ISP that charged 10% more so they could give away 10%?
A 10% rebate isn’t a fix all, but if you leave the math out of it, and leave it fuzzy, you can sell it as a life changing feature.
I’d love to see the math too. I have asked for a model… But it is a 10% rebate, Paid up front by the same folks who might be receiving it. There isn’t a model that can show that can make it anything more than it is.
What? I’d gladly pay an extra 10% micro-payment to ensure quality things can continue existing on the internet!!
Lol r u serious
I have become more and more opposed to the idea of having “developers” and especially “content producers” being paid by the core network.
As mentioned above, if you take part of information that you dislike, the ISIS beheading video being an extreme example, you would then automatically pay them money through a “pay the producer” or “pay the app maker” system. If you read and comment on blogs with content you dislike, and participate in forums just to express your opposing views, you would financially contribute (through the system) to fund the very ideas you are opposing. I am all for free speech, but that doesn´t mean that I want to pay everybody for what they are saying. I may not even know what I am GETing before I have got it, and the system automatically paid for it.
The result could be that people will avoid reading or participating in arenas expressing opposing ideas just because they do not want to fund them. And that is dangerous. I believe it is very important to take part of ideas that are opposite from your own. Otherwise, people will just get a narrow view of the world.
What if you pay 10 percent and don’t get the quality? Good chance it will all go to bandwidth hogging apps?
There is no guarantees at all. All you get for sure is a 10% higher bill than you need to pay.
It has already been shown by maths yesterday that it will not be 10%, maybe 5% if you’re unluckly
This is why you need to do some actual analysis, because the word arguments will be attacked one by one
BTW when the new trade agreements come in (some countries like AU) we will be paying the ISPs to enforce the entertainment industry mandates to curb IP “theft” and DPI of torrents to prevent IP infringement using torrents. How’s that for being forced to support the content industry.
[quote]Full Trans-Pacific Partnership text finally released - Strategy - iTnews
Internet providers and telcos must cooperate with copyright owners to deter unauthorised storage and transmission of content, if they are to be protected under “safe harbour” provisions from legal culpability.[/quote]
No. Nobody has shown anything near a economic model. It is all just pie in the sky speculation.
Whatever it is, really doesn’t matter.
It’s doubling down the risk on an already risky project. Nobody knows how much farmers will need to be paid, let alone paying others. It’s all speculation.
I shall remain a skeptic. Paying for things that are abundant already seems like a scam. But lots of people think they can profit off of it, so everyone is aboard…
Money has to come from someplace. It really does.
Silly question here. If the entire point of pay the producer/app dev feature is to guarantee an income stream for their work, then doesn’t the ability to farm safecoin make the feature completely worse than redundant? Are we to assume that content/app creators are too stupid to grasp that their content/apps collectively will decide the fate of the network, and the concept of “buy server with software that splits/combines vaults algorithmically in a fashion determined by what the current optimal payout is, then buy more servers as safecoin value goes up”?
The only way maid safe can change it’s core design is putting it up to investor stakeholder vote or there will be outrage and investors will calling it a theft.
There needs to be three different economic models to choose from at least and a full review of the advantages and disadvantages in each case put forward in a white paper.
Already maidsafe team has changed from C++ to rust causing a rewrite of code, big investor may have been happy or unhappy by this decision.
plan A current model (10% support for app makers)
plan B modified model plan A to support content makers.
plan C scrap plan A and plan B
Plan D is plan C but with an open market for the farmer.
Plan E Everyone get rewarded with safe coin, (user,content maker, app maker and the farmer)
I think its more that without them the network will compete against the likes of NAS, google, MS, dropbox etc etc. Choice would be on cost, if security is desired, access from anywhere.
Well the 400$ NAS I bought provides strongest Linux security, encryption, access from anywhere. Some cloud storage solutions provide similar. So why would I choose SAFE if all the content on it is private data that needs the security and anonymity. It will be a small network, the masses don’t care for it. Thus the farmers each will have little to farm and you tell me how much would the farmers earn?
And confirmed that its a few lines added (ie extremely little time) to provide the current model PtP, which can be tested along with safecoin test. Hopefully it would be tested for all the issues people have raised, then if unsustainable then ditched.