Actually I am not sure this was not a good idea. For us the staff don’t have a ton of coins each and there was no coins to staff as founders or such like. There is a 5% allocation to existing equity investors though.
As our next points pointed out the holders then do all act as individual, let’s make this of value folk and so on.
I still prefer the slow release, but you make good points in that post. Early adopters/ico participants are valuable and should benefit. They will with slow release as well mind you, but can/should that be amplified?
Why do you think it would be a failure for early investors who have supported you through thick and thin to hold a majority of the supply but anonymous farmers who didn’t go through that trial holding the majority of the supply doesn’t raise the same stop sign?
Not to mention that the supply going to an anonymous few will definitely invite accusations of underhandedness, which taken together with what happened during the ICO with the master coin debacle will seal the case. It’ll be history repeating itself. I wouldn’t go anywhere close to anything that could even invite that kind of suspicion in the first place. Doesn’t make sense.
The early investors are the ones beside the maid safe team itself who most believe in the network. If you treat them badly, no one will trust you. There’ll be no uploaders. The network is them. They’ll move on to compete with you and hold the moral high ground on top of it.
EDIT: I’m only saying something because I’m a strong supporter who wants the network to succeed on a truly planetary scale and with the entire community’s remaining together and not splintering off, which will weaken it and jeopardize the various networks they go on with.
It does and I don’t think that at all. This is all poking at this from all angles to ensure we have all the answers. Not a suggestion we do this in any way.
As well as the community here and even more so the original equity investors. We will not let any of these folk down. Not all hold maidsafecoins though.
I think this thought experiment should finish here, folk are getting the wrong idea. This is not a design suggestion and it’s coming across as though it is instead of an investigation. No harm though.
I agree. And I think my writing too fast and using “you” may accentuate that. Will try to edit that response to see how I can make clear we’re talking about a thought experiment.
I actually think the team isn’t rewarded enough compared to the distribution I see with other networks. But that’s me. And I don’t know how one can go about making a change there. I think the community would be supportive.
Just one last thing; these are all thought experiments!!
I personally dislike the idea. But business wise, it might work even better than slow release because people are greedy. If that were the case, and given the precedent of ETH and LINK, etc., the network would get far more attention and interest from farmers wanting to participate. But I would like for everyone out there to get a fair piece of this incredible network if it pans out, which might be naive.
The staff will be fine though. The shares I gave to the staff scheme are still there and all staff have options on these. so if safecoin gets valuable the staff can cash those in for safecoin (106 per share). If the value got to between £1 and £5 we start to get staff to a position of financial freedom. So they will be fine really.
Plus the permanent 5% inflation dev tax for the company, ie the shares will carry safecoins for their owners while the company develops for the Safe network, right?
I am glad your mind is opened and not just frozen on some idea. Its for sure.
We (as investors) were told all Safecoins will never be in the circulation really and the 85%-ish issuance will be reached in a decade or so. This pervaded investors like me to believe their 15% share will present almost all the coins in existence the first few months, more than 2/3 of all coins after the year, and will still be around 50% off all coins after some 2 years.
So yeah, its just feeling. If maidsafe decides to dilute faster, for sure, farmers get more incentive - but investors become screwed. In that case they will be “forced” to dump their coins and buy farming equipment to adapt to this change. Is that what we want? Great inflation would be a great incentive for investors to gamble with their coins which they holded the whole time. Going in the way of great inflation would be like screwing with original investors IMO.
I dont wanna stay in a coin with anticipated huge inflation in a first year and I dont wanna sell the whole stack to be able to participate on overincentivised farming either.
Ideally I want to sell a fraction of my scrace safecoins at the beginning, keep the rest and just start farming.
Again, what inflation rates do you envision @Dirvine?
Who will buy your coins, If suddenly 10 times more coins appear on the market?
Either you take out new money to invest in equipment or you draw the line and start spitting on the project that it is a scam. People are extremely sensitive to honesty. It doesn’t matter if the technology isn’t a scam, if people think the money is being distributed unfairly they will shout at you that it’s a scam.
We have real-world examples of this “thought” experiment. Hex printed all its inflation in 1 year and everyone is shouting that it is a scam even though it is one of the few real DeFi without admin keys.
Are there people involved anyway. Yes, there are such people. And if Safe prints all the money in 1 year there will be people involved. But the mass of people will shout that it is a scam and will release an “honest” version of the network as there are copies of Hex that are “honest”…
In normal circumstances, we are in the scarcity mode since day 0, original investors having 100% of all coins.
In circumstances of turbo inflation, there is too much of supply first period (now forgive me oversimplification) on which end original investors have ca 15% of all coins and early farmers 85% of coins. Then you have the same scarcity (which word you dislike) as in case one. Value 6/7 of investors value in now transferred to early farmers.
I don’t know but this feels like hacking bitcoin code so there will be eventually 140 million Bitcoins available eventually. To every holder of bitcoin it would mean get rid of it and prepare for mining. Luckilly its hardcoded in Bitcoin and nobody can do it… but yes, Maidsafe can!
This is totally wrong. Farmers decide how much Bitcoin there will be because they decide what code to put on their farms. Personally, I will not be surprised, given the centralization of bitcoin, if the time comes when farmers decide that there will be more than 21 million bitcoins
Exactly… based on this, its actually time to sell once this proposition is getting more and more real. Once its on the table, you better got already rid of most of the bag of shitcoin so you can start farming it before it gets out of shitcoin faze.
There has to be some sort of balance between coin holders, many of whom have years of opportunity cost on significant sums of money, and the value of the hardware that farmers bring to the table. The network would not exist without either party.
Assuming we don’t want to tank the price, then at say a 20c launch price, the remaining coins would represent some 800M USD… They shouldn’t be given out before farmers have provided a similar order of magnitude of service, e.g. in the order of petabytes stored and served. Or looking at it from the other side, providing (brand new bought) hardware and bandwidth should initially have something like a 1yr payback horizon.
To serve as any sort of store of value, this means not so much a rapid expansion as one in tune with the total value of the network. Hard to measure as the total value of the network also depends on adoption rate. At the beginning it will be a tricky balance, where the farmers need to be getting slightly overpaid (drive provision), and the storage costs need to be cheap (drive users). I think the best way to do it is to more or less let economics drive the expansion of the network, with a (moderately) high initial emission, perhaps even a burst to get the network over the initial size hurdle, but most definitely tapering off asymptotically as soon as feasible to give long term value to the token.
I don’t think we know for sure. The more folk that use the network then the coins will be created faster to a fixed cap.
So here we are defining inflation strictly as inflation of coin supply. Not inflation of value. It’s related but confused I think.
So here’s another thought experiment. Instead of everyone getting 1:1 MAID → safecoin, what if they got 10X that or something. So the whole supply went to that 15% on day 1.
In terms of value is there any inflation or deflation? There are a lot more coins, but probably at same market cap (think when company shares split etc.)
So the inflation of number of coins is an inflation. Value is separate. So 10 coins at £1 is exactly the same as 1 coin at £1 in terms of value.
So this
Is true, iff the coins are on the market and then the market is flooded with more coins. However it’s not the case of the market starts with all those coins, we do have the maid proxy though and it can and probably would appear like flooding.
Again I am not promoting this, but we talk of scarcity when it’s more obfuscated scarcity as we don’t know how fast the network will take off and coins distribute. So kinda scarce but not fixed supply, until they are all out. Maybe the network does grow faster with more coins out there? However does it work if many folk don’t use the coins and hold them? So early adopters with massive amounts may be inclined to hold a lot, but drop feed to more people may encourage use of them? I think we don’t know, greed is hard to fathom and much of the hold type folk (I include myself) are looking for increased value over a short time.
Anyway, lots of intersting inputs in this thread, it was worthwhile @Dimitar got some discourse going
I probably need to repeat 1000 times, this is not a proposition. If it’s better to never discuss publically I am happy to hide everything from view and just do weekly updates. The ability to discuss and look at all angles to me is a very honorable and honest approach. It leads to finding out more information that blindly following a trodden path.
Just to be clear - I think that all the coins to be released immediately will be better for humanity. Just know that even if you do something very good for humanity, you will be hated.
So the release of all coins at the same time will lead to the launch of many Safe networks faster. So there will be competition and more economic models will be tested at the same time, which will lead to the survival of stronger Safe Networks, which is good for our species. But of course, like I said, you David will be hated.
The low inflation option will simply prolong the start-up process and you will not be hated. The end result will be the same - there will be many Safe Networks to compete and the best will survive…
Whether made by people or algorithms, these are hard decisions. Sometimes they will be wrong. But there is no excuse for an algorithm to be racist, sexist, ageist, ableist, or otherwise discriminatory .
WHAT WE DO
ORCAA is a consultancy that helps companies and organizations manage and audit algorithmic risks. When we consider an algorithm we ask two questions:
What does it mean for this algorithm to work?
How could this algorithm fail, and for whom?
Often we ask these questions directly with companies and other organizations, focusing on algorithms they are using. We also ask them with regulators and lawmakers in the course of developing standards for algorithmic auditing, including translating existing fairness laws into rules for algorithm builders. No matter the partner, our approach is inclusive: we aim to incorporate and address concerns from all the stakeholders in an algorithm, not just those who built or deployed it.
SERVICES
Algorithmic audit
We work with an organization to audit the use of a particular algorithm in context, identifying issues of fairness, bias, and discrimination and recommending steps for remediation. Extensions of the basic audit include:
Assistance with remediation of fairness issues identified
Developing strategic communications about the audit and findings
Public-facing Certification for fairness (where applicable)
This firm was set up to analyze algorithms for secondary and tertiary effects. We might use a firm like this to ensure there are healthy incentives for both the network and the stakeholders.
