If SAFE won't pay content makers, it shouldn't pay App makers

[neo]

@TungSvard

Ironically, your support for PtP is for the purpose of making content creators money over security the system.

Quote please I have never said or implied that. If anything I supply considered reasoning for why that is not the case.

@TungSvard

Not only that, but having them get paid twice – once by the consumer and once by the network

The commercial world sees this.

Anyone on a commission works this way, paid a retainer and a commission of the sales.

In the USA I hear that waiters have to receive tips to get enough money to live. Paid by the establishment a minimum wage and receive tips from the customers according to the quality of their service. Paid twice for the same work, and from 2 sources for each payment.

@TungSvard

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.

This argument is not shown to destroy anything where it has been used for ages. See the 2 simple examples above.

And your statement rather says that the concern is for the profit that the coin will make and not the actual security of the network. The network remains secure, and you see more content providers are attracted to it which in turn sees more people use it, becomes more inclusive, more movement of the coin, the coin is more active more puts occur the network hums along giving out coin and getting it back. The only security threatened, IF AT ALL, is the backpockets of a few

.[quote=“TungSvard, post:160, topic:5827”]
My source is from David Irvine here:
[/quote]

And ignore HOW these figures fit in to it. If you do not read the logic and considered reasoning given then its just a debate of words and preferences. Seriously, can you not understand the reasoning why its not 20% of all the networks payments, which does not contradict David in the least.

Also you should read the post he responded to, and that it has to fit in to the network as a whole, not take the case he explained as if its the whole.

Do you serious think that EVERY get will be a PtP and a PtD?? surely you can see that it is not.

Am I noticing more and more that some think the security of the network/ecosystem is in the price the coin. The arguments here would make it appear so.

[happybeing]

@TungSvard you are arguing by changing your argument each time I address it, and you are never responding to the points I make to challenge your points. There’s no point in such a conversation. Suffice to say I don’t find your arguments convincing.

[smacz]

@TungSvard you make really good points really poorly. Let me fix some of these for you (disclaimer - all quotes should be considered solely my point of view, and are accurate as far as the scope of my own personal view reaches):

Having the system pay for content with safecoin is tying and linking the money supply of safecoin (to a consumable that does not support the direct economic advancement of the Network - such as farmers (space) and apps (ability to PUT) - see “BTW” below).

Do you see how [unrelated to the Network’s health] subjective content is? Who decides [the universal value of content]? [The Network]? No, consumers do. [You do not] want this to be the basis of [the “oil of the Network”]?

The Network is concerned about the operating costs of itself. Anything that does not aid it’s own income is not to be rewarded.

This goes for you too @dyamanaka

@dyamanaka

EDIT: There are useful APPS that only do GETS and should be able to earn income. This means a WALLETMARK is better suited for both PUT and GET functions.

Pray tell - why should they earn income. “Should” is a very strong word - akin to “must”. Don’t they give no direct economic advancement to the Network?

---

@TungSvard

I think we need to step back and discuss if [apps] should be paid by the system. I think they can be paid by the free market as well.

If the users pay the app by the quantity of their usage, then it is a free market - in more senses of the phrase than normally apply. See the PUT Incentive Model above.

---

@happybeing

Safecoin, a currency backed by the unleashed potential and creativity of all mankind.

When your slogan is fixed, it sounds like soviet-era wall street propaganda bullsh*t to me.

To clarify: it’s not backed by content, it’s utilized and maybe even valued by content - but the value of Coins, as you have stated before, is not representational of the health of the Network or it’s Coin. It’s backed by Network space and operations made accessible by apps creating the ability to PUT and subsequently GET the content.

BTW - if you wanted to PUT data to, or GET data from the Network without an app, you would have to edit the source code itself. Else you could create a script using the API, but isn’t that in itself an app?!?!?!

[happybeing]

@smacz

When your slogan is fixed, it sounds like soviet-era wall street propaganda bullsh*t to me.

It wasn’t presented as my slogan, but as a counter point to the equally flimsy “a currency backed by cat videos”. Both are valid, but only together are they useful. Each reveals the lack of useful substance in the other, and together they point to the need to expand our understanding.

I find the arguments about subjectivity and “real” value flawed so far. In my opinion value emerges as a kind of collective coherence of a group, in this case all of us, expressed through each of our individual subjective actions such as watching cat videos, liking posts, visiting URLs, tweeting, voting in polls etc., and SAFEnetwork provides us with an opportunity to measure this in a way that while not perfect, might at least be far more robust than current models of production and distribution.

To accurately quantify value is impossible because we all do so with different priorities (cat videos versus cancer cures), but all are in the mix. So instead we compromise. Monetary value is one such “measure”, and works quite well, but as we know incentives distortion in how value is perceived and presented in the current system.

There is no perfect way to decide the value of content, but in the present system, it is co-opted by people who seek to control the creation and distribution because, by making monetary value our measure, we create an incentive for this to happen. For profit.

I therefore understand the wish to keep the network “clean” in this respect, and I don’t disagree. It is a valid concern. I don’t want to jeopardize the network by including in it things that put it at significant risk. However, let’s not turn away from things that might be game changing in a positive sense, until we have throughly examined those risks and can decide whether or not they are worth taking. That’s why I’m asking for those who feel the risks are too great to elaborate them - I’m hardly the best person to do that, when my focus is on the potential benefits. I’ve elaborated those, and nobody has challenged the benefits. So I think its the risks that need understanding at this point.

I merely don’t accept that “there are risks” alone is sufficient argument for not trying PtP/PtD when for me, there is an opportunity to design an alternative system of rewards, that (as with a monetary system) won’t perfectly reflect value, but might do so adequately at the same time as removing the mechanisms that are currently causing very damaging distortions.

We have media of all kinds manipulating consumption by a small elite who decide what will be offered, promoted, advertised for their benefit, while disregarding the impact this has in so many other respects. Not least, excluding much of human creativity from view, to create scarcity, push up price, and consume every drop of human attention possible.

We should certainly consider whether PtP/PtD is an accurate reflection of value, but we should not compare it with an ideal. We should compare it vwith how well the current system functions in this - and other - respects. Let’s compare the whole with the whole, and let’s make sure we are fully aware of how the current system operates and the impact it has.

[Blindsite2k]

@happybeing

There is no perfect way to decide the value of content, but in the present system, it is co-opted by people who seek to control the creation and distribution because, by making monetary value our measure, we create an incentive for this to happen. For profit.

An altcoin does not need to measure monetary value as has been exemplified by systems like followmyvote or how bitshares is using the blockchain to create a decentralized stock exchange or whatever. What alt coins do is allow us to tokenize values. Now yes once one does tokenize a value odds are it can and will be traded for monetary value but that’s true of most anything. People trade their honor, their self esteem, their integrity, their votes, favors and all manner of things already. To sum up an increase in VALUE = increase in PROFIT. VALUE = PROFIT. Now subjectively what one values and considers profitable is up for debate, that’s where the alt coins and free market come in. An increase in money is not always an increase in profit. If it was then people would never buy anything.

If one sets up a charity one is still doing it for profit, the profit is just not their profit. Or it could be argued they receive emotional and spiritual profit in the form of knowing they are helping others. But as far as an exchange of value that could be tokenized and traded there is still profit being made. We need to stop thinking about people profiting as a bad thing and start thinking about what we are honoring and valuing as a society and as individuals so we can start designing apps and alt coins to reflect those values. People will gravitate to what makes them feel good and betters their life experience be that a sandwich, a stack of bills, or giving someone a gift to make them happy.

@happybeing

I find the arguments about subjectivity and “real” value flawed so far. In my opinion value emerges as a kind of collective coherence of a group, in this case all of us, expressed through each of our individual subjective actions such as watching cat videos, liking posts, visiting URLs, tweeting, voting in polls etc., and SAFEnetwork provides us with an opportunity to measure this in a way that while not perfect, might at least be far more robust than current models of production and distribution.

And this is were we disagree. I define values very specifically, and the more specific the better. Value is subjective and must be defined specifically by whoever or whatever is observing it. You do the same thing in math or in programming: You define your variables. You define your values.

If
CollectiveValue = Cat_Videos + Likes + visted_URLs + tweets + votes + misc

then it won’t be the same as

SubjectiveValue1 = Total_Safecoin + Total_Bitcoin + Total_Profits

or

SubjectiveValue2 = People_Helped_Daily + Charitable_Works + Honorable_Deeds

or

SubjectiveValue3 = Hotties_Banged + Hottie_Contact_Info + Porn_Collected + Porn_Made

or

SubjectiveValue4 = Cat_Videos + Lolcats + Regular_Cat_videos + Regular_Cat_Pics + Funny_Cat_Pics_and_Videos

I mean I could go on but you get the point. Value = honor + love + charity? value = money + wealth + power? Value = family + community + friends? Value is like a variable it’s what we define it as that makes the difference. And that doesn’t change whether it’s on a collective or individual level. Value isn’t defined by consensus. It’s defined by the subjective perception of the individual which can then be aggregated by the consensus but if that initial definition isn’t taken into account… well it’s likely you’ll run into syntax errors.

[happybeing]

@Blindsite2k

We’re at cross purposes here. I’m not saying anything that contradicts what you wrote about defining values and concensus. In fact while I wrote that values emerge from concensus, I also mentioned that reflecting on those values each of us would disagree because the concensus will not fit our particular perspective. At the same time, but less relevant, there are so called “universal” or “human” values etc. where groups do tend to be able to agree.

My point is that you can’t talk about a system that reflects value accurately, yet we live within an economic model for creative production and distribution that does that very poorly, and that SAFEnetwork is IMO an opportunity to try and provide an alternative that improves upon this - and which will be very much in tune with the other aims of the network. Otherwise, why would David have suggested it?

Anyway, my points weren’t directed towards you. I’m still hoping that those who see flaws in PtP/PtD will take the trouble to elaborate the reasoning behind these and attempt to quantify, or at least explain the logic of this, because so far they are largely opinion that hides what I think are assumptions, and I’d like to be able to test all that. If it all stands up, then we have something to stand up side-by-side with the benefits, and make our judgement against. My reason for entering into the debate was not simply to argue one side - my mind is not made up though I hope we can achieve something big here. So I wanted to keep the debate going and explore at greater depth.

[Tim87]

@TungSvard

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?

WHAAAAAT? PEOPLE ARE TALKING ABOUT CAT VIDEOS AND I’M LEFT OUT

[dyamanaka]

@smacz

This goes for you too @dyanamaka:

@smacz, If you’re going to summon me, at least spell my name @dyamanaka correctly so the forum notifies me. I’m joking, just so you know.

---

@smacz

Pray tell - why should they earn income. “Should” is a very strong word - akin to “must”. Don’t they give no direct economic advancement to the Network?

My response, which you pulled from another thread, asked why “should” APPS earn from PUTS but can’t earn from GETS? Aren’t APPS useful doing both? Unfortunately, consumer spending only comes from PUT requests. That’s why I initially agreed with the (Put Incentive Model).

I think tapping into consumer spending regardless of PUT or GET might be the most practical solution. A Basic Walletmark serves this purpose by pulling the APP or CONTENT owner’s wallet address. Based on the APP payment options (tip, donate, like, buy, subscribe), the consumer controls “if” and “how” much they give to that address.

This whole back and forth is really about implementation. Unfortunately, we are at an impasse about the Network participating in the equation. On the one hand, I would like to test it and see what is possible. On the other hand, I want beta release yesterday.

I’ve spent enough time on PtP, PtD threads, with very little headway. I’m going to focus on other issues where I can be more useful.

[Blindsite2k]

@dyamanaka

My response, which you pulled from another thread, asked why “should” APPS earn from PUTS but can’t earn from GETS? Aren’t APPS useful doing both? Unfortunately, consumer spending only comes from PUT requests.

Because PUTS are used by the network to give value to safecoin. You trade safecoin in exchange for space on the network and spend that space using PUTS. Ergo PUTS cost safecoin. GETS on the other hand give value to farming. The more GETS being circulated the more GET requests that are issued to farmers which in turn mean more safecoin is rewarded to them. Farmers RELY on GETs being free because that’s what encourages their revenue stream and keeps the network functioning properly. If GETS cost then you’re essentially trying to get water to run uphill. What you’re going to spend safecoin, which relies on people downloading stuff and resources being devoted to the network, to download more stuff AS WELL as upload?

[smacz]

@dyamanaka

Aren’t APPS useful doing both?

You need to be more specific.

Are they useful to the user? Yes. But the user isn’t the one rewarding them with the PUT Incentive Model.

Are they useful to the Network? No. They cost resources without producing any income. From my write-up:

Drawbacks

1. Not all APPs need to PUT

No, they don’t. The ones that don’t, however, aren’t generating revenue for the network, and therefore the network shouldn’t take on the burden of subsidizing those APPs.

So what can the devs do for APPs that don’t PUT? Well, there is always the payment directly from the users to the APP Wallet. (such as micro-payments or subscription services) There are also more complex business models that are being employed today in the FOSS industry. These are still valid forms of monetization.

Also, keep in mind that not all PUTs have to be in the form of public content. PUTs can be initiated for configuration files, or messages. There are all types of PUTs, and different APPs will utilize space on the network differently.

2. Lurkers make up 90% of the existing Internet

And they are not contributing therefore need not be rewarded, or reward those who facilitate them [= apps/app devs] although they are certainly free to lurk. When they decide to contribute they can do so in the most advantageous way possible.

[smacz]

@happybeing

That’s why I’m asking for those who feel the risks are too great to elaborate them

The risk is that value given by the Network to content producers cannot be subjective - as you have indicated that it must be - being that the Network is content-agnostic.

@dyamanaka (got it right this time!) has introduced pay per “like” as a response to this argument - however I personally don’t believe that it solves the problem for other reasons (elaborated in the related thread). However, he has recognized this shortcoming in PtP as significant enough to address it. Whereas you have not put forth a plan to reduce this communization of the Network were it to implement PtP.

[happybeing]

@smacz we haven’t been in conversation so in bit sure what the risk is you are talking about here:

The risk is that value given by the Network to content producers cannot be subjective - as you have indicated that it must be - being that the Network is content-agnostic.

I’ve heard “it will be gamed” but as I have said, no convincing argument as to how. I don’t understand the risk you mean above (because I haven’t been following all threads here) so can you spell it out (or point me to where this is explained)? Thanks.

[Tim87]

I can’t read this many posts, so please forgive me if I’m stating something that’s already obvious to everybody.

If PtP will be implemented, most payment will not be for “actual” content (as we humans think of content: movies, music, books, etc), but for services related to actual content. I know: “[citation needed]”

There are classes of services (e.g. search engines) that will need to post a lot of data, but it will be for the benefit of the community, not the benefit of the owner. These services, however important, will simply not be possible without offsetting for their expenses. At the same time, getting payment would be an incentive to provide quality content.

[EDIT] I didn’t notice this thread was the one with the App makers argument. About that, I don’t think it’s possible. Apps and the Launcher are just code running on your computer: you have full control over them, sometimes theoretically, at other times readily (e.g. for the open-source Launcher). So, if a payment is not enforced by the network that serves the content, that payment is not going to be made. I don’t believe the network differentiate between content that is “App code” and content that is “cat video,” so that’s where I’m saying the idea is dead. Please correct me if I’m completely off track.

[smacz]

Quote from my 10th post in this thread. I’m sure it’s been reflected elsewhere as well.

@smacz

All content is not equal. Having a reward system built into the network must necessarily mean that the content gets either treated the same, or that the network can differentiate supposedly “good” content from “bad” content. Neither way is preferable.

[happybeing]

Thanks @smacz for bearing with me.

For me, this seems to be a false presentation and a false choice. A rationalisation of your position, rather than an analysis leading to a conclusion.

I see it like that because PtP provides a mechanism that rewards content according to a simple, easily understood formula: how often content is accessed in a way that triggers farming rewards.

What is not clear to anyone as far as I can see, is what will happen in practice, so for me this discussion is about using thought experiments, careful reasoning, and debate, to try and characterise this as completely and accurately as we can - before - (and I’m being a bit of an optimist here ) we decide one way or the other, as individuals and as a community. That’s why I’ve said, way above, I think it is premature to be casting our votes, except as an interim measure of opinion.

I don’t see the point in talk about whether or not the network can differentiate between more valuable content or less valuable content.

Instead, we can simply look at what the effects of this proposal would be in different scenarios, try to establish boundary conditions, effects, risks etc

Value of content is neither here nor there during this process. We both accept value is subjective, so at the end of the process, each person can look at the whole picture and make a judgement on whether they like the effect of PtP, and if they want to factor in their ideas about value when they make that judgement, that’s fine. But it isn’t necessary in order for us to characterise PtP.

For me, yes it would be great if it reflected my values in operation, except that it would then not reflect everyone else’s Which would not then be good, so even here where I’ll have to allow my subjective, I personally don’t see “value” as a helpful way to think about this.

So let’s forget that question. How about we compare SAFEnetwork with PtP, and without PtP instead, and choose based on that?

In my case I will definitely factor into my decision the impact that a massively popular SAFEnetwork could have on the existing highly centralised production and distribution models that dominate today. Which serve a small minority at the expense of the majority of producers and consumers.

I have been very surprised how many fans of decentralisation and dis-intermediation are willing to dismiss PtP, without us talking the time to imagine the impact it can have on this highly centralised, and dominant information industry model (which exploits every area of information production and consumption, from scientific publishing, to music, news, film… you name it). Why aren’t people seeing and grabbing this, and making sure it can’t possibly be made to work before deciding against it? Why are they dismissing it without first trying to make it work? I don’t get that.

But that’s my take, each of us will have our own reasons for our decision, and when we choose to take it. We all have our subjective judgements, ideologies and beliefs. I just don’t think they are helpful in setting out the choice between SAFEnetwork with PtP and without PtP, as clearly as we can

TL;DR I think we should leave all those subjective views and opinions aside. At least from the discussion, even if not from our subsequent personal decision in favour or against.

[whiteoutmashups]

@happybeing

I see it like that because PtP provides a mechanism that rewards content according to a simple, easily understood formula: how often content is accessed in a way that triggers farming rewards.

Exactly! It’s all very clear and logic-based

@happybeing

I have been very surprised how many fans of decentralisation and dis-intermediation are willing to dismiss PtP, without us talking the time to imagine the impact it can have on this highly centralised, and dominant information industry model (which exploits every area of information production and consumption, from scientific publishing, to music, news, film… you name it).

Right?? And we’re supposed to be the people supporting new paradigms / tech!! Wth

@happybeing

Why aren’t people seeing and grabbing this, and making sure it can’t possibly be made to work before deciding against it?

Couldn’t have Asked it better myself!

(sorry I know I’m not really adding anything here, I just agree with everything you’re saying so much that I didn’t think a simple “like” covered it)

[whiteoutmashups]

nothing matters except for documented tests / network PtP experiments; everything else is just Noise

[TungSvard]

@happybeing

@TungSvard you are arguing by changing your argument each time I address it,

Not changing my arguments my friend, adding. Adding to them as more and more holes are revealed with the PtD and PtP model. I was OK with PtD in the beginning but not any more because of the arguments I read against PtP.

Let me summarize the main points. For more details, see my previous posts:

1. Apps and content increases the money supply of the currency safecoin. Do I want my salary paid in a currency inflated by people who produce content like cat videos, TMZ gossip articles, or by Angry Bird apps? Or backed by gold, the US government, bitcoin, etc.? Safecoin’s money supply should grow with network capacity (i.e. only by the farmers) because it’s measurable and concrete. Content is consumer driven with subjective quality.
2. Content creators can get paid twice – once by the network and another by the consumer. This is economically unsustainable and in the long-run and will devalue safecoin. Yes, safecoin cycles back into the system but after being dumped onto the exchanges at a lower price. Who cares about price? The farmers do. Once safecoin dies, the network dies.
3. If it’s easy for content creators (e.g. the little guy) to make a profit, it’s even easier for an attacker to make a profit. Because new garbage will always be quicker and easier to manufacture than quality content. Attackers will be happy to break-even.

4. The SAFE network does not need apps and content to survive and to keep the network secure because it has inherent value.  Devs and content creators will flock to the SAFE network whether they get paid by the network or not.  Keep infrastructure separate from the use of the infrastructure.  Do roads need to pay for the cars?  Do utility companies need to pay for the dishwasher, microwave, etc.?
   

[neo]

@TungSvard

Apps and content increases the money supply of the currency safecoin

You have not shown this. Its maths does not cut the grade of explanation.

WHY?

Because when you say this you only look at one side of the SAFEcoin cycle equation. You falsely present SAFEcoin as fiat, Bitcoin style with its once issue it remains and any increase forever dilutes

@TungSvard

Content creators can get paid twice – once by the network and another by the consumer. This is economically unsustainable

paid twice is an important part of the USA earnings - ask any waiter, ask all those on commissions. I’ve already mentioned this. It has been used for centuries in various forms and survives through the good and bad economic times and is proven to work.

@TungSvard

Yes, safecoin cycles back into the system but after being dumped onto the exchanges at a lower price.

Pure speculation, and requires that the creator earns enough to even want to do this, they might keep the meager amount to use for their next work. Rather like an author/artist does now with any payments they get.

@TungSvard

Once safecoin dies, the network dies.

Oh I love this, doomsday predictions without a shred of reasoning or supporting logic.

Rather to the contrary the network will not even care because you say when arguing elsewhere “apps and content to survive and to keep the network secure because it has inherent value. Devs and content creators will flock to the SAFE network whether they get paid by the network or not.” And the same applies for farmers, look at how many that have already said that in this forum alone. That they would run vaults regardless of the rewards given.

The network coin, SAFEcoin, does not need value to work. But because it represents value in PUT costs of a resource then it will value, real vale that will prevent it from going to zero and remain there. (Some) Farmers will farm even if only to get coin to put their data onto the SAFE network.

@TungSvard

If it’s easy for content creators (e.g. the little guy) to make a profit, it’s even easier for an attacker to make a profit. Because new garbage will always be quicker and easier to manufacture than quality content. Attackers will be happy to break-even.

The reasons why this is false have been shown to you with some maths and yet you maintain this unsupported statement. You look at one side of the picture and do not examine the whole

Why is it easy for content creators to make a profit??? Please show your reasoning. I thought people have to decide to get their content.

Why are attackers happy to just break even. There are way better ways to attack the network. You even appealed to the NSA doing this when it was debunked before. If you say that PtP will devalue the coin then having an attacker just doing gets by the billions on every public file which will cause a massive increase of the coin and do more damage for less cost.

@TungSvard

The SAFE network does not need apps and content to survive and to keep the network secure because it has inherent value.

True, but in what state. Many things survive without innovation.

@TungSvard

Devs and content creators will flock to the SAFE network whether they get paid by the network or not.

Why? You need to provide at least some reasoning to counter the observations that only a tiny portion of the world is even interested in crypto-coins and the banks are only interested now because they see a new way to control. The typical developer/user in the world is not interested in the least. And MAID is a very tiny portion of that scene. 10 years and we have what about 2000 people who took enough interest to register in the forum.

@TungSvard

Do roads need to pay for the cars?

That is a false argument - again you persist with apples-oranges arguments

HINT - what is the analogy of paying the farmers. Your whole analogy falls down before it gets up.

Substitute farmers for PTP in you analogy and it fails.

Now will you at least consider these point and provide some real logical explanations of why you claim that PtP will destroy the network. More than a “catch phrase” explanation. You repeat the same things again and refer back to your unsupported statements. To discuss this properly we need to understand your reasoning that lead to your conclusions

[TungSvard]

The list is a summary. It’s to make the point that I do not change my arguments as @happybeing continues to claim. I’m adding to them and I’ve listed them out. A lot of points have been discussed and it’s helpful to summarize pages and pages of posts.

@neo

Because when you say this you only look at one side of the SAFEcoin cycle equation. You falsely present SAFEcoin as fiat, Bitcoin style with its once issue it remains and any increase forever dilutes

I never presented safecoin as fiat. Fiat is unlimited supply. Safecoin will have limited supply. But until that is reached, safecoin will be generated by farmers and app devs with a proposal to extend it to content creators. To clarify, these all increase the money supply until the maximum supply is reached. This doesn’t change the fact that the value of safecoin is partially backed by content.

@neo

paid twice is an important part of the USA earnings - ask any waiter, ask all those on commissions.

The waiter analogy is false. Waiters get paid less with the expectation of getting tips. The minimum wage for tipped employment is substantially lower and has not increased nearly as regular minimum wage. Ask any waiter. Commissions is based on job performance while PtP is based purely on a puts and gets as far as I can tell. This is not a measure of the specific job performance. Performance measures are different depending on the job, not on a fixed formula that’s suppose to work for any and all situations.

PtP is a subsidy that must be paid in that it is not voluntary but based on a formula. It’s a forced donation to allow usage of the network. I do not want SAFE users be forced to subsidize porn apps, child pornography, racist content, cat videos, and Angry Bird type apps. It should be VOLUNTARY.

@neo

The reasons why this is false have been shown to you with some maths

Your math only shows a diminishing ROI. It never goes negative. So according to your math the worst case is break-even.

@neo

Why is it easy for content creators to make a profit??? Please show your reasoning. I thought people have to decide to get their content.

Let me paraphrase. Whether easy or hard to make a profit, it will always be easier to create garbage than something of true value. All one needs to do is to dupe enough users to download fake content. That new Brittany Spears album was really an edited version of Rick Astley or my niece’s piano recital. Rinse and repeat.

@neo

Many things survive without innovation.

Innovation will be by apps and content created with THE USE of the SAFE network. This innovation does not need the help from forced subsidies and donations which having PtD and PtP built into the protocol is.

@neo

Why? You need to provide at least some reasoning to counter the observations that only a tiny portion of the world is even interested in crypto-coins and the banks are only interested now because they see a new way to control.

Microsoft is a tiny portion of the world? IBM? Samsung? These are companies playing with crypto and blockchain tech as we speak. Bitcoin companies and the like and blockchain had the fastest growth of venture capital in 2015. Apple being compelled by a court order to provide back doors to it’s products? Tiny? MAIDSAFE on Poloniex is now trading 8 times higher than at the token sale. Ethereum is now the 2nd largest market cap behind bitcoin.

Your observations are assumptions. Do I have to respond to every weak and wrong argument and assumption made? Then I will hear next is that my above statement is also an assumption and has no reasoning behind it.