As I keep saying, what seems blindingly obvious, the things that will succeed on SAFE are those things that leverage its peculiar advantages.
Therefore, if there is a SAFE version of any of those applications that you list, it will need to be a version that could not exist on clearnet, or it won’t happen (other than for testing and experimentation).
It follows that the things that will succeed will be illegal, somewhere.
If someone equates right-action with legality, then SAFE offers them nothing, obviously, because whatever is a threat to the status quo is made illegal.
I have actually thought about this a lot. I think there will be bubbles (and perhaps another big one) with crypto-investments, just as there has been booms and busts in most every technological advancement to come along. How do people protect themselves from these? I think we would do well to educate ourselves and be very skeptical when it comes to investing in crypto-projects.
@19eddyjohn75 mentioned Swarm above and I was tempted to invest when I first saw their proposal. My instincts said, “Stay away…” and I’m glad I did. We will see a lot of these projects get funded and fail. No one can predict the future, but we can be smart and realize every single project out there is high risk
The biggest factor I look for in any investment, whether it’s crypto or otherwise, is the team.
There are a myriad of amazing crypto ideas coming up, but more often than not the people behind the technology either become uninterested, don’t foresee a short-term return on their work, or are purely not good enough to make it happen.
What brought me to SAFE is the technology, what made me stay is @dirvine. I am so resolute on SAFE not because of the ideals, or the possible good it can do, or the interesting technical bits.
I have glued myself to SAFE because David Irvine is someone who can make it happen. Plain and simple. I’ve said it a thousand times and I’ll say it ten thousand more. The entire MaidSafe team is a force to be reckoned with, lead by a leader who sees no boundaries or obstacles, just temporary setbacks.
I’m sure I’ll invest in future crypto projects, but by god I would be hard-pressed to find one I’m more passionate about than SAFE, if not only for the people leading the charge.
Its beautiful, I love the diagram I’ve been talking with Mr.Anderson about this stuff for a while in the open forum and also with Phillip Rhodes. Sooner or later Mr Rhodes will probably also comment. .
Shouldn’t we be working to get rid of the professional investor class and not further enable it further- you seem to anticipate this. To me a loan from a credit union would be radically preferable. As for crowd funding wouldn’t the better kind would be without strings attached and no expectation of payoff except for the utility to society- much more efficient and never dividends for investors. This less meddlesome form of crown funding is far from charity and the contributions from the crowd would be smaller and the total amount with contributors giving probably not more than a $1-$10 dollars maybe not more than $10 mill available even if such a funding source was at a larger scale might push toward credit union loans as an alternative or a supplement (easy web search could disprove both my conjectures here) but at least you don’t have horrid external owners (although you said like minded organizations would be invited to invest?- but suppose a token market?) who make constant stupid claims like talking credit cards that can’t be paid off. Why hand the power of a DAO over to the rich or to speculators or to incredibly entitled '“owners?” At best it should be a member share owned by people directly involved with the project and not alienable outside of their immediate family. Why open it to market speculation?.
You anticipate this but if you were going to want to keep any outside investor investment even for start up as you propose (if I’ve understood from similar organizations, but not necessarily) you’d want a plan to get rid of all outside investment shares as soon as possible- contractual timed buy out etc. 100% internally funded pay-as-you go for things like pensions, keep all your funding internal, don’t get any revenue from sources outside of your actual product stream. Fund employees directly and if you vest them with something like a retirement share, claimable at 5 years make sure it can’t be alienated to anyone outside of their immediate family and only while that that survivor was alive. Rethink this notion of “full time” and drop the term “dividends.” It can provide full time pay and benefits for much less than full time.
Maybe scrap the term “owner,” its more like member- better if no one owns it. You get a say and a gain based on your contribution and history of membership not because you think you own something and are entitled. None of this absolute power and control stuff not even by degree.
All I am saying is that these attitudes seem more consistent with flatter streamlined highly automated organization. Given that you overhead costs could be so much lower it all seems possible.
SAFE will succeed if the costs to distribute data are lower then to distribute it over the real inet.
It`s like the “Energiewende” in germany (evolution of the electricity market).
Not one nuclear power plant (one hoster with his backbone) brings the energy to the consumer. The consumer (solar cells, wind turbines and so on) brings the energy to the consumer.The efficiency to distribute data is the key.
I dont know exactly the architecture but it will be nice if local clusters are possible. (get the needed data from the nearest point) The net must be intelligent.
I dont see something illegal in that…
For example:
An app like Netflix.
You buy a film with safecoins with the SafeTV app.
Now you can download the film from the safe network and watch it with the app where the decrypt code is.
You pay for it and there is nothing illegal…
When this distribution way is cheaper for the App\Company then over the real net - SAFE will win.
Microsoft and RWE believe in Etherum, RWE is a big german power company…
I thing also big internet providers should have interests.
I have checked many crypto currencies too and i think bitcoin is crap and all other currencies too.
Only Etherum and Maidsafe have really a potential for a breakthrough.
Brainless farming and ponzi scheme are not good enough for a revolution and for my interest.
Ripples are a technology from beginning of the finance system… stupid to invest only one euro in this.
(besides you want only to gamble)
Regarding risks of invests… without a risk you get no profit.
Crowfunding and Steam green light\ beta games work same way.
The developer evt. can earn an reputation level what it makes more clear if it is a new one or someone who finished some projects.
But if the SAFE-Network lunch it will be work for it self - new buisness ideas will come up and no one can know which risk model will win.
For Example - dispensed risks with development trusts. Some developers put there ideas together and you bet on a bundle.
So, basically, as a specialist, I can IPO myself and get funds, perhaps one-time, perhaps paid in installments, to do my work, under condition that X% of my earnings would be redistributed to investors for Y years. The failure to do this will be a default and would be priced it.
What concerns me, as an investor, is that in a distributed digital crypto bla-bla-bla I can’t be sure, that the same physical person does this first time, if (s)he had default before, etc, so the expected risks will be very high, thus I will price the share very low which will damage the whole idea of IPO’ing.
I run distributed software development teams for 15+years and own a company that does the same for 8+ years. Even if I know real-word identities of my developers, I can’t offer them such kind of option, because at any moment they can walk across the street click a link and be working on another gig/team/company in less than a week.
Thus, the only viable option is to fund pretty senior devs, but they can easily make money without selling out “personal shares”.
I’m not trying to say that the idea isn’t viable, I’ll try to implement it on an training course (e.g. payment can be waived depending on your efforts, actions and result).
What’s your opinion on that? How do you expect to solve this?
Well, to my amusement, it appears that there’s a way (and I’m starting a DigitalJustice.io to explore this): if parties agree to use a binding arbitration and it is conducted according to an NY 1958 convention, then the decision should be enforceable in all jurisdictions.
But most of the cases under this proposal would be of too low value to invoke the machinery.
