Investors can sell at any time. I don’t recall a detailed list of guaranteed features being promised when I bought into the IPO.
3 Likes
I’m still approx 969% behind this old OP.
The topic is coming up again so I wanted to reinvigorate this thread.
This was a quote from today.
I think it’s the only alternative to not having PtP. Who else can agree with this line of thought.
Because… What makes app data more special than any other type of data (music, research, videos etc) that people produce?
Without apps there are no platforms to put content on, Without content no platform would succeed. But! The platform will be able to charge for content that doesn’t HAVE to be a job of the networks. I’m super torn and it’s beyond me honestly.
I guess that’s my cue.
Reward on Get request = bad;
Reward on Put request = good;
Back to work now 
1 Like
Developers will create SAFE apps even without the system paying them safecoin. SAFE has inherent value. There’s nothing like it on the planet. Not even storj is a good comparison (a debate for another thread). If it has value, it will be used. And which developer would not want a first-movers advantage to build the first SAFE web browser, the first SAFE Facebook, the first SAFE search engine, etc. on the new internet. There’s plenty of money to be made by the devs.
My biggest concern is making sure the security of safecoin remains intact. Incentivizing beyond the infrastructure level of the farmers and to the level of usage in the form of apps and content will seem to undermine the monetary function of safecoin. There is no way to reliably predict the future supply of safecoin based on apps and content, especially when they do nothing to secure the network. It’s the farmers who secure the network.
Imagine if bitcoin generated coins based on apps or content. How would any investor or user of the currency perceive it’s stability based on the whims of how much the public uses a particular social media app or how much they liked the latest video or music that went viral? Do I want my safecoin to become debased because a cat-video went viral? Or someone made billions building the next Snapchat, Tinder, or Angry Birds app? Absolutely not.
2 Likes
Firstly I repeat that you haven’t explained why Safecoin price will be affected by a cat video going viral. I’m not saying it couldn’t happen - but my understanding is that it won’t - and until you explain and show that it might I don’t accept this premise. So your position is based on an unwarranted assumption from my perspective.
Secondly, you are taking the purpose of Safecoin, or assuming the success of the network, is about stability as a currency and attraction for investors. I don’t accept either, those are secondary factors. Safecoin is there to help the network function and meet it’s core objectives.
We can discuss whether your concerns about the impact on attractiveness for investment are valid, but even if they are, IMO they are secondary, except for investors who put investment before other factors of course.
3 Likes
Yes devs will create apps regardless of profit motive. If you’re saying devs need financial incentive to get them to switch over to SAFE then couldn’t this be provided at the app level? As @whiteoutmashups says, and many others, they’re more than willing to put out that 10% to fund devs and get awesome apps made. So it’s not a lack of charitable people.
Also if it’s done at the app level then such an app could be forked for different causes so that people could donate or prioritize different causes. There’s been much discussion about how to impliment social safety nets. Well if we were to make all this PtP and PtD VOLUNTARY it would also make it FORKABLE which would mean it could be forked for other causes like health, welfare and whatever else.
It isn’t about whether devs will need PtD in order to incentivise them to create apps. It is about creating a different ecosystem with alternative revenue models form the current internet - as I have described on the other thread (Poll: Should MaidSafe implement PtP) here and here
2 Likes
I see what you mean. But if only appmakers and not producers are rewarded at least they have the option of building a sharing feature into their app. I would still rather have producers automatically rewarded as well as that would be a huge incentive worldwide for everyone to participate in the SafeNetwork. What do you think of the idea of a Producer Pool? Where all producers are allowed to pull from the pool up to the amount their content is rewarded and should they leave that reward in the pool then after a given amount of time that SafeCoin is re-injected back into the community?
I haven’t given it much thought, but it seems like a good solution to the problem of lost coin. I’m not sure how much of a problem that is though - there will be many reasons for coin being lost, so fixing this one in this manner is not necessarily significant. It can be fixed in other ways anyway (e.g. divisibility to help balance deflation)
(x-post Poll: Should MaidSafe implement PtP (Pay the Producer)?
Here’s my baseline:
What contributes to the direct economic advancement of the Network?
In laymans terms: What isn’t just “paying the Network” but providing ways for the Network to be paid?
- Farming - provides space and infrastructure for data to be PUT
- Apps - provides users with the ability to PUT meaningful data
- Content - PUTs data onto the Network
With farming, vaults are rewarded in proportion to how much data they store & successfully retrieve on demand. When done right, this enables the ability for the Network to generate revenue.
With the PUT Incentive Model apps are rewarded in proportion to how much revenue they generate for the network via PUTs. It’s “affiliate marketing done right”. (credit @DavidMtl)
PtP is the exact revenue that the Network is looking to generate. PtP coming from the Network is ludicrous. Why don’t we just reduce the price of PUTs while providing the same amount of service?!?!
FWIW walletmarking is an all-around solid idea and should be implemented in the core Network code as it is PtP done right simply because it is based on user (human) valuation
I’ve played with this idea in the Put Incentive Model (see above) a bit. Two approaches really stuck out to me:
-
It could be a stock-like pool where it’s a percentage that you hold based on some ratings system. Somewhat like @dyamanaka’s Pay per Like but with a pool. Take your percentage out when you want to - and figure out if you’re a bull or a bear. Unfortunately no such rating system could ever possibly be put into the core of the Network, and doing so on an App level would break the ability to have a separation of apps and content.
That being said, I do believe that there may be a way to do this app-agnostically. But that would require further brainstorming (I would welcome a thread for further discussion on this).
-
Have distribution be based on time - but let me quote myself:
Explanation here:
Having the system pay for content with safecoin is tying and linking the money supply of safecoin to the production of content. So when a cat video is produced and played, when someone writes and reads gossip from TMZ, when advertising is produced and watched; the money supply increases. So the value of safecoin in economic terms is based on the fleeting value of content.
If I ask the average person if they want their money backed up by the US government or by cat videos which one would they pick? Which one would they choose to have their salaries paid in? It’s also the same with apps. Would they want their currency backed up the latest series of Angry Birds games or the US government? This is what I mean when I say I do not want my salary to be paid in a currency backed by the whims of the consumer. It’s suppose to be the consumer who ultimately determines the value of content which will in turn determine the value of safecoin.
Yes, I am excluding farming in this example even though 20% (10% safecoin for devs, 10% for content producers) is still substantial in the valuation of a currency.
It safecoin is not perceived as a storage of value as much as bitcoin, gold, or even fiat; no one will want to use it. Without value, there will be no demand. Without demand, safecoin dies. If safecoin dies, so does the SAFE network. This is what I refer to as risk to the system.
Point 2:
Devs and content creators who sell their apps and content to consumers will get paid twice. Once by the consumer and a second time by the SAFE network albeit likely in different amounts. Is this economically sustainable? Not for safecoin. Who wouldn’t want to get paid twice? This will undermine the value of safecoin and the survival of the SAFE network.
You seemed to have missed a few points here.
The viral cat video has to be seen in the greater ecosystem of the network. I will explain
- At any one time the gets occurring in the system for which the farmers are paid at a certain rate FR
- Only a portion of those gets will be for content with a PtP address (only exists in public data.
- reasonable to say a minimal of 25% of gets are for private data
- only 50% or less of public data will ever have the PtP address associated and more like 1-5% if only the files 1st chunk is given the address
- 25% of gets at absolutely max is for APPS (and APP incentive excludes any PtP incentive)
- so 75% of gets is public of which 25% is APPs, so remains 50% of gets that could have PtP paid, but only 50% of them have the address.
- So we get only 75% * 50% * 50% (18.75%) of the gets will have PtP incentives paid
- APP and PtP are currently proposed to be rewarded at FR/10 or written another way is 10% of FR
- Dedup will effectively reduce the coin supply while no increase in payments. And PtP will cause a lot of dedup
Farmers receive 100% of FR
APPs receive 25% of 10% of FR = 2.5% of FR
PtP receive 18.75% of 10% of FR = 1.875% of FR
So when you say [quote=“TungSvard, post:153, topic:5827”]
Yes, I am excluding farming in this example even though 20% (10% safecoin for devs, 10% for content producers) is still substantial in the valuation of a currency.
[/quote]
You have made a major error. It is only going to be on the order of 4.375% at MAX
But going back to the opening statement the massively viral cat video, is still only a minor portion of the total get traffic occurring. Maybe if you create a super successful one, it might gain 0.1% of the traffic for an hour or two then drops off. So the 4.375% raises by 0.004375% to 4.380%
Anyhow 5% is dramatically smaller in money markets than 20%.
Also I am amazed that people think the coin’s purpose is here to make them money. The design of the coin and the SAFE project is not for coin value but for a network to operate, to grow, to get content on it so people use the network.
If you want a coin for maximising profits for yourself then SAFE might not be the best bet.
Also you will find that by recycling the coin the effects of “oversupply” by a few % will be countered by people using the coin to upload that content, to use the APP.
#####Note: I also hope the coin will go through the roof in price, but I also understand the design of SAFE and its coin is not to make money but to provide a way to encourage uploading content that encourages people to use the network, and combine with the security feature provide secure access for everyone.
2 Likes
You haven’t explained why, or more importantly how, a cat video or any other content going viral will affect Safecoin price. You’ve said that the two are linked in a vague sense, but I have no idea in what sense or what relationship you think they have. You’ve certainly not demonstrated that the relationship is a problem.
I’m not saying there is no relationship between what happens on the network and the price of Safecoin. Obvs.
You said a cat video going viral would, because of PtP, be a significant factor in Safecoin price. I don’t understand what you are talking about there. Yes there is some relationship, but the significance is only in your presentation: what would you rather have your currency backed by, US Gov or cat videos? Well, I think cat videos might prove rather attractive to some given where we are and what’s coming. 
But the weight of your argument seems mostly tied up in presentation (cat videos versus the most powerful military on the planet), rather than anything we can discuss, such as the economics of PtP and how particular content.
Perhaps instead you could have said, what would you rather back your currency: an article by a genius who has cured cancer using SAFE network’s dis-intermediation of scientific papers onto a free access for everyone network, or another who has cracked fusion power using the same burst of released human knowledge and experience… etc.?
Hmm, Safecoin, a currency backed by the unleashed potential and creativity of all mankind. Has a ring to it huh? As an investor, how do you feel about about having a bite of that cake @TungSvard?
1 Like
The cat video comment did it’s job. It at least caught your attention to my argument. It’s an example. It’s an example of content who’s value is subjective and determined by the consumer.
And you just supported my point with the statement below:
Do you see how subjective content is? Content is valued differently by different people. Content is used differently by different people. You may think the genius who wrote the article that cured cancer is valuable (and I do too) but plenty of folks who don’t care and rather watch PewDewPie. Who decides? You, me? No, consumers do. And you want this subjectivity to be the basis of a currency?
“Rather than anything we can discuss?” Being paid twice for content which undermines safecoin which undermines the security of the SAFE network is not worthy of PtP discussion?
And safecoin won’t be these things if it wasn’t tied to content and apps? Of course it will.
My concern and focus is for the security and survival of the SAFE system.
Ironically, your support for PtP is for the purpose of making content creators money over security the system. Not only that, but having them get paid twice – once by the consumer and once by the network.
How is this part a given?
I made that distinction here in a previous post: “…who sell their apps and content to consumer will get paid twice.” Obviously, those who do not choose to sell to consumers but only choose to earn safecoin is their choice but also their loss in additional potential revenue.
My source is from David Irvine here: