This is part of the key. Having issuance related at least partially to economic activity is basic economic management. New adopters should share in value creation because they are value creation. Getting SAFE by spending money/time on hardware should not however be massively easier than getting SAFE by spending money/time to realize the dream. Tricky balance, and may need a test run or simulation or four.
4 Likes
I know, but folk like you and many others would give coins to so many folk and hopefully still have enough to get a brilliant return.
In any case I am gonna bow out of the thought experiment now. I will soon be accused of child murder 
(not by you though).
5 Likes
It would be great to do a Fleming release or similar where folk acted like it was real money and see if folk who never knew us were inclined to participate. Then try several angles on it. I am not sure we will get that chance, but I would love it.
3 Likes
I will personally respect you and say good things about you, regardless of whether I make money from my investment. Iām just trying to tell you that regardless of your decision on inflation, the end result for the world will be the same. What will be different is whether the first investors will be able to make a profit from the first Safe Networkā¦
This is something I work very hard to protect. I have had that focus since the first guy put Ā£5K into the project in 2006, long days, no holidays etc. It is as important to me as the prospect of a better world. We cannot get the latter by screwing the former.
6 Likes
If all 2^32 went to the original investors, it would mean the initial total scarcity of MAID with farmers having no chance to farm only that amount that was spent. Are we on the same page? I have not thought about that yet, but itās definitely very radical. One big complication being the network staying without a pillar of resources for incentivization of farmers when there is no spending.
Probably deflation or neither. Itās exactly the same like having 1:1 and 452 552 412 SAFECOIN is all that will ever exist.
Not exactlyā¦ After the split of shares, there can ever be more shares. But once originals investors got 2^32, they have everything and nothing can be created further. And thats kind of important, no?
I probably completely agree thereā¦
ā¦
I probably misread somewhere and I dont follow motivations of such brainstormings. Is that we need to get out all safecoins because of safety as you said somewhere?
One plus that I immediately can tell you is that the company will receive 5% of all inflation. Ie there will be a budget to continue to develop the network and advertise to new people.
1 Like
This should work. I had issues loading that video as well.
1 Like
It seems Youtube is down at the moment.
3 Likes
This is always the case really. Clients need to pay, farmers get paid that amount (Elders get some share as they control Adults etc.). Initially the payouts will be inflated by the network giving out some of itās coins to, but itās a bonus on top of farming. So farmers get nothing if no client is storing data.
Yes, when the network has paid out all of itās remain g 85% then no more can be created. Itās a matter of how long that takes really.
We donāt need to, but if contracts are crypto secured from person to person (or farmer) then the network should have no authority to create or own any. So I am looking at clients paying with DBC direct to farmers. It brings a higher level of security (but the dorrs not closed there, even then) to the network and reduces its authority over our data.
2 Likes
Only the shareholders do, not the company. We get 5% of all farmed safecoins if we are the only developers, but we hope that reduces quickly. That should mean we get more value, but more companies/developers are involved also sharing.
2 Likes
Discurage against holding, eg. more using or sellingā¦
Do we need to fight hoarding? How bad is when somebody never sells his 30M of MAID. How bad is that Satoshi will probably never move his coins? If we have good divisibility, hoarding is actually no problemā¦
I am not a big believer in a theory that inflation is something like oil for an economy.
We hope, but we donāt know. So if all the safecoins are released in the first year, we can most likely assume that 430 million safecoins will go to MaidSafe 
1 Like
No, as long as itās not excessive. It can be a good thing in many ways as you have a bunch of folk who will really want to increase their value.
2 Likes
I am not sure, it will depend on how many safecoins farmers need to stay farming. If the value is very low then it will be more, but if the value is higher then itās less. But the dev rewards really will be a slow drip (I hope).
1 Like
Okay, that was the piece I was probably looking for! Thank youā¦ 
So in the thought of investors having everything since day 0, there is basically missing only incentive not to hoard? Itās not about smoothness in times of low activity at all
I am probably tiredā¦ Looking for tomorrow morning, bye for now!
1 Like
This is another key. SAFE will have at start a large number of altruistic farmers. The initial cost to store will also probably (must) be lower than fair market value. To incentivize rational farmers willing to stick around, there must be some sort of predictable trajectory to SAFEā¦ I would hazard a guess that this is most likely to be achieved by an emission that lets the PUT/SAFE price do most of the work.
Imagine thought experiment trajectories, 1) where rapid emission incentivizes rational farmers at the beginning who proceed to dump en masse. 2) where emission keeps prices tempting, but does not start a negative ādump immediately loopā. 3) where slow emission keeps farming rewards seeming high at first because of SAFE scarcity. While 1) may seem viable, it will tank the price at the beginning and raise supply towards the cap abruptly giving rise to āshockā token economics. 3) similarly likely does the same, but because of the speculator-hoarding loop. Both extremes probably depend on how fast the SAFE/PUT ratio adjusts.
There must be a golden middle where increases in emission are based on increased use and thus the āmonetaryā inflation is balanced with value increase ā¦ with error on deflation, but at a rate that lets PUT/SAFE do the work. Hoarding minimized, but emission balanced with increased activity.
2 Likes
Currently reading this to attempt to bring a clearer framework in my mind. Weāll see if it helps 
but maybe others would like to read along.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/economics-econometrics-and-finance/network-economics
3 Likes
Personally I would be very surprised. Some people could attempt creating such a fork but it would be a minority fork because the fixed cap is one of the Bitcoin founding principles. There has been many forks but none have removed it and I have never heard of such a planned fork.
I am not saying that such a radical fork wonāt happen for safe network, but mentioning this invariant of all bitcoin networks deserves your argument.
The difference is that Bitcoin is old and well established but safe network isnāt and so is more prone to such a fork.
1 Like
What you are saying is true at the moment. Bitcoin is becoming more and more centralized, if it becomes a world currency, the big countries will control it. It will not be today or tomorrow, maybe not in 10 years, but in 50? Things change, then it may not seem like such a radical idea, there are people who are talking about it now after all I heard from them that idea ā¦
1 Like