That’s right, but you can buy ETH with credit card or bank transfer from anywhere and use any Dex. There is no need to promote centralized exchanges anymore…
No messing about from @JimCollinson 
1 Like
Thank you 
People use currencies and for trading. The money are in the decentralized exchanges of the Ethereum network. Maybe one day they will be in the decentralized exchanges of a Safe network, I personally prefer them to be in our SAFE Network 
The option for a 3rd party to create alternative asset pools to trade then it’s up to them to do it.
We need to be careful not to dismiss the value in MAID and then safecoin.
Safecoin (SAFEcoin?) will have value, as that is in part its purpose to motivate farmers.
I did wonder yesterday a network that was free and zero financial reward would be more natural!.. Nature doesn’t use money?.. but humans are greedy and money serves an important driver.
I don’t think snapshot is necessarily the better option.
The benefits of burn
We need to be careful not to dismiss burn as an option.
Yes, there is a cost associated but also many benefits.
I’d suggest better option is that a holder of coin has control and continues to have control of when a coin is converted.
The benefit of this, is that the existing markets for Omni.MAID and any others, would remain open - with a real token that can continue to be traded… they can continue to be sold until the point that the owner burns them.
A snapshot is an adoption of risk and kills the market and stagnates interest in it… while most MAID owners appear to be holders, there will be a fair number of shortterm traders and that snapshot will bring reasoned anxiety to holders who might sell a large fraction, to ensure they retain control of their asset - that’s a big negative that’s occurred previously on other snapshots.
The MAID is access to future utility and then carries the idea of value, even if it’s not money, it is valuable to owners. The transfer then is not just about booting the network, it is about confidence in the network.
A burn is the only option that allows owners control over what occurs.
A choice to burn allows a user to action when they have confidence.
Obviously, worst case is that network bug halts of risks the accuracy of the balances.
I wonder if with burn there is still option to retain a log of those for any reboot.
If you can still reboot on the back of a burn process, then surely that is to be preferred?
The log of burn should not be an issue for those anxious about privacy because they can simple transfer in network to another address and the history of transactions is forgot over time.
Worst case though a reset acknowledged the burns that have occurred.
The difficulty would come if there was any market out from the network - which obviously we would want
but as soon as SAFEcoin is sold, those transactions can’t be undone.
So, at the point SAFEcoin can be sold there is no option for reset.
But surely that is a problem for snapshot reset too.
for testing… simple snapshot might do?
You could use a snapshot for fun spawning testcoins, that could be very useful.
So, I think we need to recognize that the coin is not just for the network but also a value motivator… it will drive farmers in.
It is an easy sell once the network is ticking over - buy some MAID, burn it and make use of it, is also a way to keep an on ramp, and could well dovetail the newer markets for safecoin, if those are slow to appear or slow in certain environments - we see atm chatter about a difference of BTC and ETH.
A question there about whether a certain amount of safecoin is made available to exchanges or if those exchanges much wait for farmers and those with coin to sell into those exchanges. Useful I wonder that Maidsafe makes available some base liquidity for the exchanges… selling those at some price that reflect the price?.. I’d suggest only what is sufficient to kick start them rather than a flood of cheap coins… less is better as safecoin should be considered valuable.
2 Likes
This is actually a very valid point. safecoin or network tokens are not securities either in SEC or HMRC land. I don’t see any impediment to companies setting up buy safecoin here! as they are tokens with a specific purpose (pay for network activities).
Then the secondary markets come into play, the buying and selling of safecoin between people for cash/stuff or whatever.
Then the wave of exchanges where safecoin trades like shares or cryptocurrencies.
These last 2 will create some SEC/HMRC etc. headaches, but as @JimCollinson is rightly pointing out they are not the totality of safecoins place in the world.
Of course, before all of that we have the value of the network and I mean value measured in human terms, do we need this, will it help us, does it enable more folk to get and share data and valuable information.
Whether the last part needs any of the three positions I outlined above, is debatable. I imagine achieving each of these 4 goals, first one being fundamental and that has a network, will add value through easier access, and allow speculators to inflate onboarding significantly.
This is a nice way to do things as early adopters benefit and receive financial rewards, but that quickly dissipates through the world as the non-financial value is realised. I am very keen on the tangible value is transferred to people in terms of the network’s capabilities. The financial rewards, while terrific, are not fundamental at all, they will however provide early adopters, hopefully, with financial independance.
25 Likes
Yes, I like your point here. The burn idea is kinda neat because it can be started any time if maidsafe provides a burn address (anyone who burns can no longer trade their maidsafecoin and are locked into waiting for safecoin, so it’s not clear if there’s any advantage to an early burn. Maybe it’s an advantage to be able to do it while mempool is relatively empty? Or if there are specific tax rules where you live that will be triggered by burning then an early burn gives more flexibility around the timing of those taxable events?).
If there’s a lot of early burn it could make for an interesting bit of publicity about how much dedication there is to the project, people who are happy to wait rather than daytrade and speculate.
It also could be a kind of a measure of how close people think we are to the network being launched, presumably more burn will indicate closer proximity to launch?
Early burn may increase the price on the exchange because the burn indicates a decrease in tradeable coins so lowers the chance of dumps and increases scarcity of tradeable maid.
It seems like omni is designed with the intention of a burn mechanism to be used. From the omni protocol specification:
Say that your project is finished and you want to start burning tokens in exchange for the rewards your promised early backers.
Just brainstorming, not advocating.
Small nitpick but 5% of 232 is 214,748,364
5 Likes
Yes, though I wasn’t expecting a while before launch, perhaps that is useful too.
I was thinking more overlap with option for burn after the launch, when there is clear evidence and increasing reason over time to be confident; and a dovetail then with existing markets continuing beyond launch for a time, until they stall for not having enough reason to exist - which tempts the action of burn needs to be available without time limit.
but yes, this flexibility serves interests before and after… and avoids liability from snapshot.
One issue that might arise is the network having safecoin to function on the back of what has been burned… but perhaps if done right, the balance of value difference will suck people into the network (by choice) because of the difference of on network/new market and old market valuations. The other factor here will be the pre launch experience of some testcoin… which will likely help confidence to a point and encourage burn up to some tipping point which is accepted as a switch from test to real world v1.0
Need more thought about what a reboot means in the context of option to be selling safecoin after launch. At what point is reboot taken off the table that allows transactions to be one time only… or is that risk just adopted by a market whose value might reflect that … and jump when reboot is taken off table.
1 Like
I don’t understand that, as it’s just a matter of process - of a swap of token… a promise fulfilled. It’s not transfer of ownership, it is burn that sees you hold one flavour of token instead of another. It’s also outside of realizing fiat - it’s not money etc. (I know nothing about tax beyond what is reasonable common sense)
I agree with this. It would be great to let people just swap their maid tokens for safe coins at their leisure and preferably as an external process.
Not having a big bang snapshot/exchange lets people manage their risk too. If you have a lot of maid, pushing them all on to an embryonic network is highly risky. Personally, I would rather drip feed mine in as needed, while confidence is gained.
The only issue with this is that the original maid token needs to be withdrawn after exchange. So, burning seems to be the process for this. Can exchanges do this? Can they be trusted? Presumably it can be easily validated on chain, so auditing would seem to be possible.
So, I’m against any snapshot on any chain, personally.
2 Likes
Thats terrible, I thought the UK was bad with 3 tiers.
<12 k free
12 k to 30k 10%
Over 30k 20%
Thats only roughly, we need to look at other income as well, but 39% , ouch.
1 Like
Hmm… would there be any workaround by creating the burn address and donating it to everybody in the world? Then you would be an owner too. Well, probably not working that way.
I don’t think it will run very happily if farmers can’t exchange for fiat money to pay their electricity bills.
More liquidity and a better price for safecoin will benefit the system.
3 Likes
How did BTC miners do it before the first exchange got up and running?
I don’t disagree with this. But that liquidity needn’t go via a blockchain, and is a separate thing to the MAID proxy token, let’s not bind these things together, as it will just produce a more expensive and poorer experience for all.
3 Likes
But what if the first launch of Safenetwork fails? At that moment it’s very worth it to still have good old MAID as a backup (or its ECR20 version).
Burning MAID is a bad idea. Snapshot is much better.
2 Likes
Tax may lack common sense but I’m not keen on indulging the stupid without challenging it …
If I own both the send and the receive safecoin address, the burn is just process - and notably own where provably no-one owns the burn address. The burn address typically is a public address which has no private key.
Important point to query though… ah, for a world without Government!
The alt is that you are selling to $0.00 safecoin has no value until some later point in time where they can be sold… but as noted above farmers will want to be able to sell to pay their bills.
@fredbone, I agree snapshot has good points and I would prefer it.
But with Burn, the MaidSafe Foundation or auditors can keep the list of coins burned and rerun the allocation of coins on a restart. Everyone just resigns a message to prove they owned the original address
3 Likes
True, but don’t we want as strong a network as we can get, as quickly as possible? Monetary incentives will drive that much faster.
In my opinion, having the proxy token already traded on as many exchanges as possible sets up safecoin to be on more exchanges once it’s launched. It will also bring more people in to try out the system and get involved in the early testing.
Many of us are here because we were able to see maidsafe as one of the top projects back around 2014, and able to easily buy the token.
1 Like
Of course using a proxy safecoin might get things moving fast early on but will be like a chain and ball for years after the first few months when the network adoption increases. It will effectively stop any real progress in getting native markets for the safecoin. And also open safecoin up to erc20 traders to manipulate
safecoin is a lot better than any proxy on eth coin
6 Likes