Its true that maximum number of coins in finished network, going to be only 600 million?

[feinberg]

Does the network retain the info required to distribute dividends to individual token holders? I suppose it must. I really like the additional dual incentive concept. There’s actually incentives on multiple levels for everybody. Big sacrifice to the security upgrades though. This will all be very interesting to follow.

[Nigel]

Maybe that dividend is actually a slightly different token that allows for governance voting rights for upgrade proposals.

[feinberg]

I’ll give you an A for effort but I think that proposal is likely to be shot down with prejudice.

[Josh]

@Dimitar

A Safe Foundation that spends tokens to upload data to the network is a perfect solution to this problem while creating a real economy around the network.

A Safe Foundation is a great idea.
Is your proposal to give a handful of people control of 85٪ of network resources though?

Allocating a percentage to a foundation is great, hopefully only enough to get the network started otherwise I see that as very centralized control.

I’d rather see the funds go to 16k different addresses than a small group entirely.

No perfect solution though.

[DavidMc0]

@neo

The network will be growing for one and the SNT will become more valuable as the network is used more thus contradicting dilution. More people buying resources will more than compensate the perceived dilution.

I agree that early farmers would still do very well in terms of ROI over time if the 85% dilution were to happen, but my point is that having no dilution would lead to a significantly higher ROI than with the dilution (for farmers who plan to hold long term).

E.g: if farmers earned 10% of SNT supply in the first year via people paying for storage, would most prefer it if:
A) the 10% they earned would always represent 10% of SNT supply and market cap, or;
B) the 10% they earned would represent a diminishing portion of SNT supply & market cap over time.

If my intention was to farm and hold for the long term, I’d definitely prefer to be a farmer in scenario A, though of course farmers in scenario B would likely also do very well in absolute terms.

@jlpell

Farmers will only care if the fiat price is reduced, which it won’t be by definition of a successful network

That’s true for farmers who will sell tokens as soon as they earn them; the spot fiat price is all that’ll matter to them, which won’t be affected by future expected dilution, but by short term supply & demand for storage on the network.

But, for those who want to use farming to build up a long-term SNT position, a fixed supply would be hugely better than dilution over time in terms of growing the value of their earnings / holdings over time.

@neo

Its complex and not easy to say which is best. That is one reason we have people who are on each side of the fence or sitting on it.

Yes, it certainly is complex. There are factors we just can’t know ahead of time that could change outcomes.

I guess the technical issues with the network holding and managing SNT will be the decider: if it is possible to implement what was originally planned without compromising privacy / security etc, it’ll likely happen. If giving the network those abilities is too big a risk, the switch to fixed supply will likely happen, for better or worse.

[bridge]

You like privacy secure and freedom

But your way to solve problems is really centralized and foundation driven.

Let it to the MARKET, if SAFE network is useful than people will upload and make a app for their profit.

If not we are fail to get a users, and SAFE foundation’s upload strategy is totally not effective that situation.

I don’t understand, is there any marketing or foundation driven actions at BTC ? That is decentralized and market driven.

We are waiting truely decentralized protocol, not spot money game.

[Southside]

@DavidMc0

That’s true for farmers who will sell tokens as soon as they earn them;

I thought one of the principles of the network was that it allowed farming rewards for all who could run suitable hardware. I see this as a great leveller, permitting an income source for both those who may be excluded for whatever reason from"normal" employment and allowing participation from the Third World. Ok so we are some way from running a vault on a phone - and that may never happen, but we should be encouraging farming participation from the widest range of potential users - and thus we should be focusing on paying out rewards that will be swapped for living expenses not pension pots for the privileged.

[Dimitar]

@bridge

Let it to the MARKET, if SAFE network is useful than people will upload and make a app for their profit.

I believe that without active intervention on our part in the first days, I see a huge probability that a copy of the Safe network will grow faster and become the dominant network. This is my assessment. I could be wrong.

---

Privacy. Security. Freedom

[scottefc86]

If there is 16k wallets now, when the network launches I personally will be setting up around 20-30 safe wallets for friends and family. How many of the 16k will be doing something similar? Hasn’t David mentioned being in contact with the internet archive also? What about China? At least a billion people with restricted internet suddenly have access to anything they want (as long as it’s on safe) by simply downloading an app. Let’s not kid ourselves either a lot of nefarious activities will be taking place in the early days. Ive said it before but I don’t think the users will be a problem it will be the authorities. I feel for David and the team as it will be them they come for.

[peca]

@scottefc86

I don’t think the users will be a problem it will be the authorities.

Not in the first months, it takes time for govenments and their agencies to notice something and some more time to react.

[DavidMc0]

@Southside

we should be focusing on paying out rewards that will be swapped for living expenses not pension pots for the privileged.

I’d be surprised if a relatively low-income Safe Network farmer could make a living from their SNT income from 1 or 2 computers, but if they got in early and saved some of their SNT, perhaps it could become life changing for them as the network becomes more widely adopted.

It’s likely that as the Safe Network grows, farmers will be able to borrow against SNT on various platforms, meaning they could benefit from SNT appreciation over time as well as getting cash for living expenses.

I hope farming can become an activity that benefits people in areas where they may not have the best internet or fastest computers.

[Southside]

@DavidMc0

I’d be surprised if a relatively low-income Safe Network farmer could make a living from their SNT income from 1 or 2 computers

Me too but it could be a valuable “add-on” that could make the difference between starving and surviving.

@DavidMc0

I hope farming can become an activity that benefits people in areas where they may not have the best internet or fastest computers.

Indeed and this is one of the aspects that attracted me to the project in the first place.

[neo]

@DavidMc0

I guess the technical issues with the network holding and managing SNT will be the decider:

That is where I stand at the moment. I too think it will be technical issues that will decide.

Although I feel if its technically suitable then they will keep to the 10+5+85% system at launch, even if just to keep to original plans/papers.

[Nigel]

Though it has been mentioned that it could be considered that the supply could be proportionally adjusted to make 1 SN = $1. I believe the point would be to aid in the common understanding and comfort of denominations of DBCs that people feel with dollars.

So I feel like anything could be on the table. That might lead to a lot of conflict in coming to an agreement everyone is satisfied with so maybe the original agreement or what is technically best will win. Hard to say. I personally think the team wouldn’t fall short on the keystone of the network, so I will support any decision they make.

[feinberg]

I trust the team to make the right call at the end of the day. There are other considerations beyond just the technical so I look forward to seeing what they come up with.

I’m not sure why denominations would be an issue. A banknote is a banknote. Surely an app will be able to do the real time conversion when issuing the DBCs, at least when online?

[Nigel]

@maidsafe

note: The following is not meant as a discussion of SNT monetary policy plans. It is purely hypothetical for illustrative purposes.

This approach to denominations does not make the One denomination equal to the smallest possible amount as our first approach did. Instead One can represent our best starting guess at for example 1 DBC = 1 USD. We could aim for One to have some useful buying power in terms of real world goods, but not a lot. eg, One should buy a can of soda or perhaps a gumball, not a house.

It is also interesting to think about what our total money supply could be. Just as a hypothetical starting point, let’s say we come up with the Genesis DBC amount by taking the current SNT market cap and calculating a Genesis amount such that 1 DBC = 1 USD. I haven’t calculated what the Genesis amount would be by this method, but let’s just pretend it is 50 million. Ok, so we launch with denom One (1*10^0) = ~1 USD and the Genesis DBC = 50 million. cool. We will ignore distribution/farming effects for now, except to say they could temporarily inflate/devalue the currency.

Ok, so this is a deflationary (fixed money supply) currency and as time goes by each unit becomes worth more in terms of real world value (or else the project probably fails). As this happens, users will gradually shift to using more 10^-1 denoms. then 10^-2, and so on. We can accomodate 128 such 10x expansions. We can also accommodate sending 3 million SNT in one dbc, eg by using the denomination 310^6. Or much, much, much more than that, if we eg define the Genesis amount to be a lot higher, all the way up to 910^127.

This is the part I’m talking about specifically when I reference 1 SN = $1 but it was a hypothetical idea.

[feinberg]

Ah, I see what you are saying now. Yeah, I see nothing but problems with the USD although I know it is merely a hypothetical. On the other hand, bitcoin seems like an ideal candidate.