Launch Planning: Community Update 🚀

[DavidMc0]

@dirvine

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!

That is clearer.

So as I see it, the only things holding back the ‘Native Token’ are 1) interchangeability with the Network Token (ERC20), 2) wallet UI.

2. should be relatively easy, so if 1) interchangeability were possible (1:1 swap, 2-way, decentralised), then I think we’d have:

• on/off ramps
• benefits of ERC20 ecosystem (use of hardware wallets, dexs, usage in smart contracts etc)
• No need to integrate Native Token with exchanges etc in a rush, due to ERC20 taking this role
• Native token for paying for storage - faster & cheaper than the L2 option, should extend utility of data storage to more use cases etc
• Ability for anyone to create their own superfast tokens on the network
• Ability for any compatible ERC20 token to use a similar 2-way bridge to utilise Autonomi as an L2 with all of its advantages

So this ‘bridging’ or whatever achieves interchangeability is the thing that I am hoping is high priority post-launch (or even before), so that we get the full, uninhibited Autonomi ASAP.

[dirvine]

@FrankieJ

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…

If that were to happen and you held on to your coins then you could lose out. I said I did not want to design this right now, but that would be a terrible way for it to happen.

Instead some new currency comes along. Let’s call it X.

So X could be based on the transaction data type or not (important)

• X is amazing
• X is the new thing, everyone want to use it
• X is super efficient and transaction free etc. etc.

So nodes running day, hey we want to use X not erc20. A plan is then hatched to allow the cut over form erc20 to some new currency called X. All farmers who agree start to accept X.

X takes off or does not, we cannot control that (thank God).

So folk could gamble, sell, buy, hold or any combination and some would win, some would lose and do on. The network though does not really care, it just wants to be paid in the curry its operators decide upon and it will balance payments against storage to provide the cheapest available.

In short, the network nodes don’t care about the currency. The operators will and they need to decide.

So like bitcoin, say. In a few years it will need to move to a quantum proof signature algo, lets say FALCON, it’s miners will have to agree (hard fork) and continue. It’s a lot like a hard fork, but s it includes data that fork needs to be popular enough to carry all the data.

Hope that helps? (it involves money and everyone will want t be the winner, but for winners there are losers, so it’s best there is no winner here, just a smooth transfer)

[dirvine]

@DavidMc0

1. interchangeability with the Network Token (ERC20),

I suspect this is much harder than we realise. If you flow chart out a bridge then it leaves folk behind. Some folk will take X and some Y then when say Y becomes the standard and X goes to zero the holders of X go bat shit crazy

As I said earlier, the design of this part does not need done right now. It won’t be simple but needs to be very fair. Everyone and I mean everyone will have 2 ways to do it and both will need to be 100% done or the network will 100% die and there will be thousands of different designs all claiming the same

So my preferred approach is to get some teams to work on making their currency based on transaction data types become popular. Then if the node operators want that (the original currency design) they will vote to adopt it quickly. So we don’t stuff it down anyones throat and if the majority want it then it should happen.

I feel that works better than forcing them.

Some others will say it’s not good enough and they can create a whole new network etc.

So my feeling is get a network running, make cutting over to a new better currency as frictionless as possible and then proving a new currency and persuade operators to go that way.

[loziniak]

@FrankieJ

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

@dirvine

Instead some new currency comes along. Let’s call it X.

So X could be based on the transaction data type or not (important)

• X is amazing
• X is the new thing, everyone want to use it
• X is super efficient and transaction free etc. etc.

And then comes someone with a new currency Y, that has all that, plus it has bridging from/to Ant Coin. It’s the new shiny one, and nobody uses Zippy nor X, nor Ant Coin anymore

[DavidMc0]

@dirvine

I suspect this is much harder than we realise. If you flow chart out a bridge then it leaves folk behind. Some folk will take X and some Y then when say Y becomes the standard and X goes to zero the holders of X go bat shit crazy

How would anyone get left behind with a 2-way bridge? If the Native Token were to win out over Network Token (ERC20) in that scenario, all it means is more ERC20 is either burned, or sitting locked in a smart contract while people use the Native token on-network. Nobody loses out, and anyone could swap whenever they wanted.

But, technically I expect it might be hard. The economics of it are simple if the technology works.

@dirvine

So my preferred approach is to get some teams to work on making their currency based on transaction data types become popular. Then if the node operators want that (the original currency design) they will vote to adopt it quickly. So we don’t stuff it down anyones throat and if the majority want it then it should happen.

That’s fair, but again with a 2-way bridge & nodes by default accepting either token & making it easy to swap, nothing would be getting stuffed down anyone’s throat.

But yes, a lot will be learned with the experiments around the Transaction data type, and hopefully that feeds into development work on the native token early in the life of the network.

[Toivo]

@dirvine

So my preferred approach is to get some teams to work on making their currency based on transaction data types become popular. Then if the node operators want that (the original currency design) they will vote to adopt it quickly. So we don’t stuff it down anyones throat and if the majority want it then it should happen.

But how is it going to be ensured this currency respects the pool and holders of MAID/eMAID / the Erc20 token?

[TheTartanTarHeel]

I think that with the launch of the ERC-20 token in January, Maid holders will have the chance to either cash out or continue to roll the dice on the future of the new network. That seems fair to me, and new entrants will also come in to build the new network up.

[dirvine]

@DavidMc0

How would anyone get left behind with a 2-way bridge?

Somebody burns their erc20 for X. X does not happen quickly enough or something better comes along.

[DavidMc0]

@dirvine

Somebody burns their erc20 for X. X does not happen quickly enough or something better comes along.

Cross-chain bridging generally takes a few minutes. Nobody would burn or lock anything before the solution is functional. If it’s 2 way bridging, they can swap back again in another few minutes if they desire.

[dirvine]

@Toivo

But how is it going to be ensured this currency respects the pool and holders of MAID/eMAID / the Erc20 token?

I don’t know what you mean. On launch holders of emaid / maid will convert to the erc20 I would think. If erc20 moves to something else then the rules of that conversion need to be fair and agreed by operators.

[dirvine]

@DavidMc0

Nobody would burn or lock anything before the solution is functional.

Why bridge to a non functional coin? Who would do that? Then if say X is listed is that arbitrage and so on … it just goes on and on IMO.

[DavidMc0]

@dirvine

Why bridge to a non functional coin? Who would do that? Then if say X is listed is that arbitrage and so on … it just goes on and on IMO.

Non functional? I think paying for storage on the Autonomi network is a pretty big function! And doing it faster than the ERC20 option… and with no / relatively miniscule fees.

Of course I’m assuming node software would be updated so that both Native and ERC20 Network tokens are accepted, and then there’s a massive function. As you said, nodes being able to accept a native token as payment is ready to go technically, and is happening in beta networks already.

I can’t see any problems at all beyond the technical problem of building a watertight 2-way bridge system between and ERC20 token and an Autonomi transaction data based token (possibly a big challenge!)

[Toivo]

@TheTartanTarHeel

That seems fair to me, and new entrants will also come in to build the new network up.

Does not seem fair to me.

I think the right thing to do would be to protect the pool defined by the pool of MAID and “MAID equivalents” from other possible currencies so that all the other options would be possible as a layer 2 only. Or, they could be adopted as the token, but only without diluting the existing holders, like eMAID did, and like the Erc20 network token is going to do.

[Toivo]

@dirvine

If erc20 moves to something else then the rules of that conversion need to be fair and agreed by operators.

I think they only need to be agreed by operators, not necessarily fair. All sorts of schemes seem possible to me, to the point of destabilizing the whole network. Takeovers after takeovers ad infinitum.

[scottefc86]

Nodes should not accept anything but the ‘native token’ as envisioned. I understand the need for the erc20 token (wallets, exchanges etc) but as soon as we have a thriving network the native token must be introduced and the erc20 token removed as a way of paying nodes.

[Profess]

@dirvine

We must realise that is likely more than double the work though?

You probably know this best, I can only guess how much work would be involved, however…

• the network with the ERC20 token would not require any changes or modifications and would be implemented according to the currently accepted plan, it would continue to be discussed in the community forum and Discord,
• a copy of the code base to run the Native network could be started from scratch (whether this is a lot of work, only the… team knows), for ease of work on the Native Token communication can be implemented in the dev forum,

@dirvine

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.

There has been some discussion about this on the forum, there are votes in favour…,

• the available users will not necessarily share this, there can always be new users especially if the project is still going ahead with the original ideas because credibility is priceless in innovative projects,
• everyone could choose or test both networks, in one they buy a token and post data, in the other they run nodes and earn tokens, one does not harm the other,
• there have even been declarations of commitment to the Native Network…

@dirvine

All I mean is that route would mean an awful lot of work.

I don’t doubt that it is as you write but the question is whether it would be worth doing? As you yourself wrote:

@dirvine

So I am not bought into the all or nothing approach, I think the current approach is good. If folk then build on the transactional data type and get traction then it’s amazing and great for humanity. But let’s not link these two innovations together in an all or nothing charge. Let’s walk carefully into this battle and choose wisely. No knee jerk, no big red button, but carefully navigate the reality of modern life and where we are and hope we anticipate where we are going effectively to progress the tech and the goals of privacy security and freedom for all.

This is what I am proposing, two networks that do not prejudge anything, that allow two different objectives to be pursued calmly, to observe calmly how the market will react, which network will have more interest, that bridge the divide in the community and give credibility to the project.

Do you remember this text?

Keep it simple!

Farming is the process by which users who lend out spare storage can earn Safecoin, the currency of the SAFE Network. Safecoin can be spent on the Network, for example by uploading files.

[Knosis]

@dirvine

@FrankieJ

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…

If that were to happen and you held on to your coins then you could lose out.

Many long-term token holders are concerned that, after years of supporting the project, their investments could be undermined if the ERC20 token is overtaken by new tokens introduced by better-resourced entities. In the crypto industry, it’s common for projects to be co-opted or “cannibalized” by others seeking profit, and there’s a significant risk that this could happen here.

If the native token isn’t activated with a 1:1 exchange for the ERC20 token soon after the network launch, original supporters might suffer financial losses. They could find themselves holding ERC20 tokens that have little demand on the network, especially if new, more efficient tokens are introduced and become the preferred means of payment for services like data storage.

@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.

Unlike Bitcoin, where early miners and holders continue to benefit because BTC remains the sole token used on the Bitcoin network, our token holders face the risk of displacement. If other currencies emerge and gain prominence on the network, the value and utility of the original tokens could diminish significantly and rapidly.

Why wouldn’t greedy people with more resources than our community take over the network with their own flavor of token? Is there a DAO at the Foundation where original token holders vote to approve which token is accepted as payment for data? I just feel like we are being thrown to the wolves of the crypto industry which does not have a reputation for ethics.

[DavidMc0]

@Knosis

Is there a DAO at the Foundation where original token holders vote to approve which token is accepted as payment for data?

Node operators will effectively be this. If node operators are invested in the value of the tokens they earned, and many will also be holders of eMAID / MAID, it’s likely that they will actively resist accepting any token other than the ERC20 Network Token, or a Native Token that 1:1 represents that token, as that would undermine their investment / holdings / earnings.

If nodes choose to run software that shuns any node that accepts any other token as payment, hopefully nothing else would take root.

Definitely a risk worth considering!

[neo]

@loziniak

This is actually an old data type, and it’s already there:

Its been added. David said he added it as a new data type recently, so its new. Probably replacing anything being used for the current token.

@loziniak

I haven’t seen any info from the team about it. That’s our speculation.

Since when does major changes get made without testnets. I did not say public testnets, but I suspect some will be open for others to test like there was before the beta program.

@loziniak

Again, a theory.

What does “I would expect” convey, that its my expectations, not necessarily fact, so yes its a theory. But as David says later to have parallel networks would be a lot more work. Building on the existing codebase is just sensible. And with conditional compilation you can have the new code co-existing with the live code base and just set the flag to compile with the new code. It is one of the main reasons for compilers to have conditional compilation flags, to be able to add/remove code/features without breaking the code

[Knosis]

@DavidMc0

Node operators will effectively be this.

I understand your point. But if outside groups have a bunch of people spin up nodes they would overwhelm native node runners. It’s not quite the same as a DAO that would allow token holders to vote on changes.

I’m a member of a DAO and we’ve been going for 4 years now. No changes can be made without a vote. Anyone with a certain number of tokens can propose and change. It’s worked really well for us. We have a meeting once a week.