Launch Planning: Community Update 🚀

[happybeing]

I can’t read this any other way than forget the native token, as I’ve been saying. It’s not gonna happen in a few months and probably not in a few years.

It could happen, but Autonomi have based on the above, all but given up on the idea they can deliver what we were told to expect this month.

We are now tied to L2 Blockchain, centralising services, transaction fees, far less privacy and anonymity, far from the goal of access to everyone etc. and the main reason presented is to give investors their exit now rather than in a few years time.

Investors may well prefer ERC20, exit and shredded fundamentals, but have not been consulted so we don’t really know what they want.

[bridge]

Anyone who disagrees should leave. I haven’t seen a team create a high-speed data network with privacy, but if using Ethereum as a payment method on that network is absolutely unacceptable, it seems like a good idea to leave.

[happybeing]

I think that’s premature when we are still trying to understand what is planned and the reasons for it, and still don’t know the full reasons are trying to understand why it has been done this way.

Regardless, I’ll be here in the way that I want as long as I want unless the community tell me to b****r off.

I’ve invested more than most in this project and am still committed to the fundamentals even if others are happy to see them dismantled without question.

The implications of these changes are still not apparent so the discussion is important.

[DavidMc0]

@dirvine

I think “Native Token” is very much confusing things, do we mean erc20 native or a transaction data type as native etc.

Autonomi have used this terminology; ‘Network Token’ is the ERC20 token that is planned to be released in January 2025. This will be the only way to pay for data until the ‘Native Token’ is ready.

As I’ve understood it from what’s been said this far, the ‘Native Token’ is an equivalent to the Network Token (ERC20), but it uses the native Transactional data type rather than an Ethereum L2, and is planned to be the other token that will be accepted as payment for data by nodes.

So, Network Token = ERC20 L2 based token (2.15bn max supply), Native Token = Transactional data type version of the Network Token, from the same supply (2.15bn max supply of Native + Network tokens, so some kind of bridge / burn/mint arrangement is needed).

@dirvine

Or we screech to a halt and get the the ready with no way to pay out investors in the meantime.

I understand the ERC20 Network Token - it’s a great step to get things going more quickly & open up on/off ramps. I don’t need to be convinced of that.

The thing that’s troubling me with what you’re saying here (not with any other communication from the team about the ERC20 plan), is that it implies you don’t see the ‘Native Token’ as a priority for the team… just something that may or may not happen sometime, by the team or someone else etc.

@dirvine

anyone to push that currency

Anyone should be able to create awesome currencies on the Safe Network (as was envisioned by Project Decorum etc), but not anyone should be able to create ‘Safecoin’ - the token used to pay nodes, or the network token loses all value.

@dirvine

Not at all, safecoin was not always what folk bought into IMO but some will have.

I think it’s fair to say that most investors from the ICO onward thought they were investing in a placeholder token for Safecoin (currently branded as ‘Native Token’), which would pay for data on the network, be native to the Safe Network, be practically zero fees, practically instant transactions, incredible scalability etc. ERC20 as a stepping stone / to add functionality is a win, even if there’s a delay until the full ‘Safecoin’ vision is fulfilled.

Shifting now to say 'They won’t get Safecoin in exchange for their tokens, but they can have a slow token that’ll pay for some data storage, and maybe someone else will get the benefit of creating a ‘Safecoin’ like currency on the back of all of this doesn’t sound good.

@dirvine

Surely data matters here? Security privacy and freedom for all digital use?

It does matter, hugely.

But I expect the data side of things will be quite hobbled in terms of capability without the Native Token, as TX fees will mount up making small uploads unviable (e.g. sending a message perhaps) and upload speeds are likely to be constrained by the ETH L2 confirmations etc.

Seneca raised questions about the viability of creating his envisaged forum software on the network if an ETH L2 transaction is required for everything.

@dirvine

I am not sure what the exact question is here. (sorry)

The question is whether you plan for the Native Token to share the same supply as the Network Token (ERC20) when it’s used to pay for data, or if it will be unrelated (e.g. if ‘anyone’ can create it vs having it as the official token to pay for data on the Autonomi network).

[dirvine]

@happybeing

We are now tied to L2 Blockchain, centralising services, transaction fees, far less privacy and anonymity, far from the goal of access to everyone etc. and the main reason presented is to give investors their exit now rather than in a few years time.

Yea re not “tied” in any way that cannot be replaced. This is not a correct narrative. We are currently using an alternative currency we know will be acceptable.

It’s as simple as that really, otherwise wait indefinitely.

@happybeing

and the main reason presented is to give investors their exit now rather than in a few years time.

It’s a very good reason actually. People have supported with their pockets for way too long. If we can repay them with a currency they can cash in or wait for the transaction data type currency then surely they all win.

@happybeing

but have not been consulted so we don’t really know what they want.

I am not sure how we can communicate this any more than we are. as soon as we can we are letting folk know what we can. At least for sure I am certainly doing that, albeit I am not in internal meetings these days and won’t be for a few months yet.

@happybeing

shredded fundamentals

We are not shredding anything here, it’s just a step forward.

As I say the choice is wait until exchanges work with us and the regulators agree (which is easier as we have got progress in Switzerland on that part). That wait may be significant and so the choice is will folk use the network if the token is zero value for the foreseeable future?

It’s not about changing fundamentals or the final goal at all. Switching to a non blockchain currency is not impossible in a running network, but we definitely do not need a detailed design for that just yet and it would be mad to try right now as regulations and life changes. We can do that when we need to.

So we are giving the ability for others to create currencies using the tech we have, we are launching a data network folk can pay for.

I think you and other can really nit pick this one to pieces, but it’s hardly fair. We cannot force folk to keep waiting on the landscape changing. The fact we have the tech available is not gonna cut it right now.

So we have to launch with a payment mechanism and in doing so we are giving the ability for a significantly better mechanism to be created.

Or as I said we wait and tell everyone else to also wait and tell any partners, not now! I don’t think that choice is fair to any investors in the project.

[DavidMc0]

@happybeing

Investors may well prefer ERC20, exit and shredded fundamentals, but have not been consulted so we don’t really know what they want.

I like the ERC20 as a stepping stone to speed things up and add more options, as has been indicated by Jim & others in the Autonomi team.

What David is saying though seems like what you say… forgetting the native token, and in my view giving up on some of the most promising aspects of ‘Safecoin’, which was core to the envisaged network and ecosystem.

I hope that Jim & other people in the team’s reassurances that the Native Token is absolutely still part of the plan to be a priority post-launch are correct, and David is perhaps just not currently in alignment with others in the team on this issue.

[Toivo]

@dirvine

Not at all, safecoin was not always what folk bought into IMO but some will have.

How can I find the original text for what MAID was said to be at the time of ICO? I’ve only found that Bitcointalk thread I linked earlier. Can anyone help?

[Profess]

@dirvine

We are looking at ways to launch and get economically positive returns for fatly these people. If w turn round and say, “no it must be safe coin” and there are no FIAT on/off ramps then that’s the point where all investors are wiped out.

They stay wiped out until there is a fiat on/off ramp and that might never happen (Ava spend millions trying to get listed) and no economic advantage for nodes running, no way for folk to buy storage credits and the rest kills this project.

So in terms of safe coin, what I am repeatedly saying is allow it to happen, not only from the team, but the tech is all in place for anyone to push that currency. If some team makes it work and it takes off then we all benefit.

Or we screech to a halt and get the the ready with no way to pay out investors in the meantime. No deliverable date as it’s no longer a tech issue (as it’s not) but we wait on politics changing and exchanges listing this unknown coin and so on.

I know I am not getting through, but it me we go and go now or stop and tread water for an unknown time.

I understand your point of view, but there are different ways to achieve the goals you have outlined - so can I ask for a answer to the proposal to create two parallel networks that would remain under the control of MaidSafe??

@Profess

@dirvine

@Profess

I will ask perversely, is there really no alternative to this approach?

There are many, but time and money need considered. i.e. do somewhat or ponder everything

I wonder if it would be possible to run two Autonomi networks, and I don’t mean a bifurcation but two parallel, twin networks:

• The first would be the original network with the Native Token, which would allow development and testing as originally conceived, the team could develop the token on it and innovate, eliminate problems and bugs etc, and developers could test and develop applications on it, it would not be burdened by regulation and legal requirements because the token would not be listed anywhere and would have a clearing value, and it would be created by all those willing to create it who are looking for the utility value of the network, not just tokenomics, you could say it would be a technology sandbox, and this would facilitate testing and experimentation without complicating the work and operation of the commercial network (ERC20),
• The second would be a prepared network with the ERC20 Token implemented, meeting adaptations to regulations and legal requirements, which would allow partners’ expectations to be met and would be developed in accordance with the adopted tokenisation, with TGE implementation etc., as in the Native network, the team would carry out development work and developers would develop applications using the adopted tokenomics,

Sure the idea seems ridiculous and maybe the thought is just very silly but it occurred to me:

• perhaps separating the work on the Native Token network and the work on the ERC20 network would allow the objectives to be achieved more easily, as each network would have different scalability and technological priorities, I am not in a position to assess this, but numerous statements indicate that the changes made to the ERC20 network will cause many complications, which will probably not facilitate the work on the objectives set,
• the Native network could use the dev forum, so as to simplify the flow of information, transparency of work etc, and the work on the ERC20 network would remain in the community forum, I know that for the team this could be some discomfort but it is possible that overall the transparency of work on individual problems would be more beneficial though,
• As the two networks would be twinned, all errors detected and updates developed could be mutually implemented in the common part (i.e. the data storage layer),
• the costs of the Native Network appear to be small for the project, as the infrastructure is created by the users, and the scale of the network would ultimately be an interpretation of its sophistication and market assessment, the team would have freedom in many areas of the work, and with the risk of attempts to bifurcate the network greatly reduced, full control would remain in the hands of MaidSafe,
• I don’t know what the future of these networks could look like, but the market could judge for itself which solution is better and which it wants to use, I have no idea if this is possible and it’s just speculation, but - maybe it would be possible to merge these networks in the future, since the storage layer would be exactly the same and each network would have its own token with its own genesis, while in the current assumptions about the future there is a flexible option offering the choice of Native or ERC Token,
• no one could accuse you or the Board of Directors that the original Native network has been abandoned for any interests, and that it will not be developed.

I don’t know if I’ve drifted too far away with this idea but could it at least be worth looking into?

[DavidMc0]

@dirvine

So we have to launch with a payment mechanism and in doing so we are giving the ability for a significantly better mechanism to be created.

This is great, and to me seems absolutely the best way forward. As long as…

@dirvine

Switching to a non blockchain currency is not impossible in a running network

…is planned to be a priority once the network is launched.

[dirvine]

@DavidMc0

…is planned to be a priority once the network is launched.

Hopefully I can make this more clear.

We can have and will release NOW the technology to create “safe coin” (let’s call it that). We could switch to that today!

It has no value and no exchanges and unclear regulatory landscape.

This is NOT a technical issue at all, I cannot emphasise that enough. It’s not a technical issue.

So when you ask about priority this is my points above. If we get many folks building using that tech and moving the infrastructure forward then we stand a much better chance. It’s not about giving up, it’s 100% about opening up to everyone.

If we get folks buiding with this tech and then exchanges take notice then the environment takes off and it’s a no brainer of not only this network to use that tech. Think how many projects cool use high speed secure concurrent digital cash. It’s a massive scope and we don’t need to own, implement or push it. We want a whole community of different teams pushing it.

All of that is available to us if we have a network running that supports that data type.

[neo]

@Toivo

“the crypto currency” to

Technically its a digital currency/token. There is no cryptoing about it. Just a digital currency that has been around from before crypto was ever thought of.

[dirvine]

@Profess

I understand your point of view, but there are different ways to achieve the goals you have outlined - so can I ask for a answer to the proposal to create two parallel networks that would remain under the control of MaidSafe??

I am pretty much dead on my feet here, but parallel networks don’t make sense to me and under control of maidsafe seems to be a bad idea. I hope the technology is taken up by many folks who can move it forward. If MaidSafe remain valuable, which I feel it will, then great. But we should not depend on that.

I love folk have ideas, but I Am feeling swamped by the demands I look at every design. It takes me months and months of thinking to change tiny parts of this and some of these ideas are very fast created and I find it enormously difficult to analyse each step of how they would work.

I hope that’s not sounding bad or dismissive, I don’t mean it to be, but these questing are way larger than folk think and require weeks of thinking deeply for each one, at least for me.

I am much more from the natural approach, so cellular automata, ants etc. basically probabilistic networking and whatnot. It’s seriously hard work.

[loziniak]

@happybeing

centralising services,

We already were tied to them for a long time — GitHub, Disqus, the foundation…

@happybeing

transaction fees,

They already were told to be taken care of, with help of Paymasters etc.

[dirvine]

@Toivo

at the time of ICO?

The ICO spoke lots about safe coin. It was a secured data type (the transaction data type we are launching). However that is not all the investors, the maidsafe investors came many years before that.

The network is and always has been a data network. It had a currency to allow easy transfer of resources (pay to store, get paid for storing).

[Toivo]

Everything is just fine as long as everyone gets what was sold to them.

[dirvine]

@Toivo

everyone gets what was sold to them

That will always be able to be nit picked though for sure. I think delivering what’s possible reasonably is vital.

I think this is where @happybeing is upset and I can see why 100% there, but I am also convinced this path is the correct one to get there. If we can build traction and do so in a manner that does not lock us in then all is well. A while back when we removed the ability for nodes to create money this became possible.

It is a deviation for certain, but one I feel is right and I doubt we will all agree on it, but again we need to move forward somehow.

[Toivo]

As long as MAID/eMAID are representative of the coin accepted for payment of data storage I think things are fine from a standpoint of investor that has invested in those coins.

[Profess]

@dirvine

I love folk have ideas, but I Am feeling swamped by the demands I look at every design. It takes me months and months of thinking to change tiny parts of this and some of these ideas are very fast created and I find it enormously difficult to analyse each step of how they would work.

I hope that’s not sounding bad or dismissive, I don’t mean it to be, but these questing are way larger than folk think and require weeks of thinking deeply for each one, at least for me.

I understand perfectly well that the originators are many and the performers very few and you get your head bursting from explaining the actions taken.

But that’s why I asked, because it’s a strategy I’ve thought through (to the best of my knowledge of the project), and I think it would be a simplification of a lot of processes (e.g. you wouldn’t now have to answer those millions of questions and explain decisions), especially the very regulatory and legal issues you write about that are now changing and life-changing. One network realises scale, allows you to commercialise your network according to regulation and with market standards through the ERC20 token, and the other allows you to test the original premise with a native token and without any regulatory burden.

Simply put, it’s just that while I have my fingers firmly crossed for the project, I think there are still many twists and turns to come.

[dirvine]

@Profess

One network realises scale, allows you to commercialise your network according to regulation and with market standards through the ERC20 token, and the other allows you to test the original premise with a native token and without any regulatory burden

We must realise that is likely more than double the work though? It’'s also splitting the available users and one network would require folk who don’t value payments right now so do ti for love etc. and that is not a great indicator of the general public’s use case. All I mean is that route would mean an awful lot of work.

[FrankieJ]

Hi. Longtime hodler here. First time poster. Love the project. Hate to beat a dead horse, however…

Let me see if I understand this…

Let’s say you own, 1,000 EMAID/MAID tokens.

And let’s say you convert those tokens to the ERC20 Network Token during the Token Generating Event in January 2025.

You swap them 1:1 and you’re now the proud new owner of 1,000 ERC20 Network Tokens.

Let’s call the ERC20 Network Token… Ant Coin for example.

Instead of 1,000 EMAID/MAID, you now own 1,000 ERC20 Ant Coin.

Now let’s say, the network gains traction and 6 months into launch, ERC20 Ant Coin is trading at $1.00. Your Ant Coins are now worth $1,000.

If someone comes along and “uses the tech” (transaction data type) to create a native, non-blockchain token, let’s call it Zippy Coin, and it takes off, and it becomes the hot new zippy currency on the network, eventually replacing Ant Coin as the preferred payment of data storage. And it trades at say… $20 a coin… while Ant Coin languishes around $1.00…

What you’re saying is… as an Ant Coin owner, you’re out $19,000 worth of value, because the project is opened up to anyone wanting to create a currency, and you will not be able to swap it 1:1, ERC20 Ant Coin to Zippy Coin?

Any clarification would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks.