Launch Planning: Community Update 🚀

[jane]

@dirvine

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?

Of course they will! People use bitcoin, and its value was close to zero on launch. Come to think of it so was Ethereum. MAke your own native currency now because with the utility of this private, secure network backing it, it ought to be more valuable than any other crypto currency in the near future. I’d certainly rather collect native tokens (safecoins?) than ERC20 tokens for my storage right now. Assuming distribution is adjusted for network size/demand similar to blockchain mining rewards. Forget the exchanges, they will come from within the network as you suggest, but that can start without the native token ASAP without fiat on/off ramps - they will come. The native token won’t if you have ETH20 bogging the network down.

[DavidMc0]

@Knosis

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.

Could the DAO voting on something do anything more to prevent such a hostile takeover attempt than node operators ‘voting’ with their node software?

I guess the DAO could be useful in shaping the node software in a way that’s acceptable to node operators, and to respond to potential attack vectors and whatever other issues node operators see as important. It would be great if any DAO type thing could be built on Autonomi as well - a voting system would be a nice project!

[Knosis]

@DavidMc0

Could the DAO voting on something do anything more to prevent such a hostile takeover attempt than node operators ‘voting’ with their node software?

They would have to buy a majority of tokens make a majority vote. So it would take resources to take over. Whereas now a well funded group could code a new token into nodes and run them in parallel to the ERC20.

[Toivo]

I think that based on everything that’s been discussed for several years, it’s been reasonable for investors in Maidsafecoin and it’s descendants to assume that the “Safecoin” is going to be the one and only currency / token accept by nodes in exchange for any data stored for the lifetime of the network - and that Maidsafecoin represents 1:1 that Safecoin.

Deviation from that seems like treason, and would risk severe legal consequences for Maidsafe and persons involved in such a move.

[joshuef]

@dirvine

parallel networks don’t make sense

seconding this.

@loziniak

keeping a separate version of a codebase with Native Token is necessary

A complete fork should not be necessary, and would just make things more difficult at this stage I think.

@dirvine

We can have and will release NOW the technology to create “safe coin”

To hopefully clarify for @loziniak et al on the tech side:

The autonomi api layer is being set up as the the layer for all payment work. Nodes are being refactored to use this for verifying funds etc (a simplification move consolidating logic for payments in one place). Clients will use this same set of APIs for payments. (this is largely payment agnostic; but EVM will initially be the default).

Within that API, we should then be able to abstract the payment layer for native transfers/evm (I imagine a wee feat flag initially). With that in place, we’ll be able to get the native payments in the same API setup, and run either flavour easily enough, I hope.

This should allow us to move free and fast on EVM, dogfeed the API (within nodes as above), and then have one simple method for payment-work in all cases. (And a bit of a slimmer codebase too).

[loziniak]

@joshuef

A complete fork should not be necessary, and would just make things more difficult at this stage I think.

I agree, that it would be difficult. But, if anyone wants to work on Native Token NOW, not waiting for the changes you talk about (abstracting the payment layer), they need to fork to make these changes themselves, or just to keep evm out of codebase.

@joshuef

Within that API, we should then be able to abstract the payment layer for native transfers/evm (I imagine a wee feat flag initially). With that in place, we’ll be able to get the native payments in the same API setup, and run either flavour easily enough, I hope.

What is the timeframe? Is it going to happen in coming days, or it will be a part of work on Native Token, that is scheduled after the launch in January? Is it the “NOW” David writes about? Thanks for the response

[neo]

@loziniak

they need to fork to make these changes themselves, or just to keep evm out of codebase.

They do a normal modification cycle (not sure of the right terms) and do a pull request. The additions get checked and added if desired by the team. Conditional compilation allows the new code to be dormant if the stable is not ready for it

[loziniak]

@neo

They do a normal modification cycle (not sure of the right terms)

Actually, a “fork”

They even don’t have to do a pull request. The team can merge the changes anytime they want, as long as the repo is public.

[dirvine]

@DavidMc0

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.

My bad I did not mean not functioning. What I mean is this

I cannot see why somebody would swap a coin worth £1 for a coin with no dollar value at all and no way to get £ in the short term. Would people then not try to get the non £ coin and swap them all day. In that situation why would the other party agree to accept a coin they cannot cash in.

I admit to not bing up to speed with nft stuff, but I am not seeing the reason folk would do this swap

[loziniak]

@dirvine

I cannot see why somebody would swap a coin worth £1 for a coin with no dollar value at all

Maybe because it has a practical value? Like pay for the data efficiently and fast?

It will have value for sure, even if it’s not listed. You can always exchange OTC.

[dirvine]

Yea I don’t get it though. Who would OTC for coins with no £ value? Surely all the folks would come offering the zero £ for coins with £ value and sell them? This is where my lack of money understanding falls apart. I just cannot see folk exchange something of value for something of no value. It looks like a big sink.

[loziniak]

Maybe because economics not always mean money?

[happybeing]

@DavidMc0

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.

This sums up the problem quite well. David and the team have presented this as a stepping stone and said that getting to safe coin / native token will follow, but they can’t design it yet, say how it would be feasible to switch in practice or when.

The problem with that is that without a route from ERC20 to safecoin it is not credible to call this a stepping stone.

@DavidMc0 I think you now see the difficulty of this. If it is to be a stepping stone there needs to be a credible way technically and politically, for people to be able to pay for storage in both ERC20 and safecoin at some reasonable point in the future.

I don’t see a technical solution to that, though there may be one. If there is a technical solution, then it seems clear that having ERC20 already established is a big barrier to people choosing (e.g. node operators) to support it, and unless most node operators are willing to accept this new worthless currency, its not possible to pay for data with it.

Even a bridge won’t give safecoin value, so as soon as I read the new plan it was apparent that this is not a stepping stone towards safecoin as it is presented. Once ERC20 is there, it creates a massive barrier to paying for storage using safecoin.

David is correct to say it remains possible, but there’s no credible way that I can see that it is likely to happen in any reasonable timescale. A new coin would need a long time to become useful even after the network has itself become widespread. And without the original model of access for everyone being the priority, the switch to ERC20 and blockchain partners, DiPIN etc all add to the difficulties of reaching the original goals, and the fundamentals.

All of this is we can see to provide a shorter wait for exit for investors. I agree exit is important but I think the goals that investors were investing in are at least or more important for most of those investors.

I can’t say for sure of course, but until investors and the community can see the full implications of this - which are still only emerging through this discussion that very few will see - until people understand we cannot know whether they really support this plan.

If the implications had been laid out clearly as I have explained I doubt it would have much support. So either I’m wrong and this is just a short term issue, maybe a couple of years and then we have safecoin paying for storage, this is both a big question of what is being built and whether it is what investors want.

But it is clear that there’s no way we can have safecoin in a couple of years, or IMO ten years, once ERC20 is in place. I saw this immediately, and that is why I was so vocal with my criticism of both the plan and why I believe Autonomi have not been honest with the community about the implications and not clear about the reasons.

It seems much clearer now, and exactly as I understood from the start.

[happybeing]

@loziniak

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

True but there’s a difference between something inherent in the network and GitHub, Discord and the Foundation. David has always told us he wants to decentralise everything things like this, particularly the role of the foundation, were least worst and to be done away with as soon as possible.

Baking ERC20 into the network goes against that. He’s also said he doesn’t want to do away with it, and tbh, once it is in there I can’t see how it could be removed. Not impossible, but just not gonna happen.

@loziniak

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

I’m skeptical and have lost trust in what we are being told about the whole plan. Even if fees are hidden, they may well be there in some form whereas the safecoin design has no fees. We’ll have to wait and see.

I accept that not every point I’ve made can be known to be true at this point, but until any feature is delivered we also cannot know exactly what the characteristics are so we must speculate as part of exploring and to understand.

A few weeks ago everyone in the community were expecting something completely different and many were expecting that to be delivered by the end of October.

[neo]

Yes, I doubt 2 coins for payments will work because it will end up dividing rather than bring choice. The close 5 algo relies on all 5 nodes charging properly. If you have 2 methods and none of the 5 want to take your payments then your upload is sunk

If they did another ERC20 token to be swapped for native later on, or somehow pegging the 2 together then I could see that having a chance. But I don’t think its possible

[dirvine]

@happybeing

If it is to be a stepping stone there needs to be a credible way technically and politically, for people to be able to pay for storage in both ERC20 and safecoin at some reasonable point in the future.

I don’t see a technical solution to that, though there may be one

This is where I am not seeing this as the way forward. What I mean is a bridge. I don’t see that without becoming some form of arbitrage opportunity.

What I see is safe coin (calling it that for now) is born. It gets traction and node operators decide to go with to it. Not accept both currencies, but switch to a better …

So like a hard fork where nodes will accept the new token and not the old token. So no technical issue there.

The issue will be making holders of the erc20 token right. So the newer currency (safe coin) would have to had reserved that amount of erc20 slots to swap on a 1:1 basis. So just like we are doing with e/maid.

This is to me the simplest route and one that allows the node operators to agree with and switch to. If they don’t wish to then so be it, but if they do then the whole network is launched with the feeless and concurrent nano payment currency.

I think that’s more fair and democratic and removes us as a small group from the decision to force upon others, instead we show the route, see the sentiment and offer the solution.

[happybeing]

@dirvine

What I see is safe coin (calling it that for now) is born. It gets traction and node operators decide to go with to it. Not accept both currencies, but switch to a better …

So like a hard fork where nodes will accept the new token and not the old token. So no technical issue there.

The issue will be making holders of the erc20 token right. So the newer currency (safe coin) would have to had reserved that amount of erc20 slots to swap on a 1:1 basis. So just like we are doing with e/maid.

This is as you say technically feasible.

Apart from the obvious, a problem I have been pointing to is that those node operators and indeed the users will be very different to the ones we’d have if we went the original route.

We still don’t know who the partners are so I have to speculate, but it appears we will have a bunch of blockchain based businesses using the network for bulk storage, and with them a quite possible a very different base of users than the ones we were planning to attract with the original promises that were made.

That is a big barrier to switching IMO. So I remain very unhappy with the September plan but am glad that you have finally clarified what is required for this to be a stepping stone.

Everyone should consider if that’s a reasonable characterisation. To me it isn’t because I cannot see it happening in 5 years after the network launch (Jan) or even 10.

To me ERC20 is a millstone designed to give investors an exit in the next year or so. (I don’t believe it will be January but do think it can happen within a year from now).

[dirvine]

@happybeing

Everyone should consider if that’s a reasonable characterisation. To me it isn’t because I cannot see it happening in 5 years after the network launch (Jan) or even 10.

To me ERC20 is a millstone designed to give investors an exit in the next year or so. (I don’t believe it will be January but do think it can happen within a year from now).

I think that is a reasonable fear and I have such fears myself, but I am committed to getting something running and I kinda like the idea of the data type to create the currencies being available to all. It may mean another team does the currency itself (not so much technical but all the other stuff, politics, regs, wallets etc.).

That’s a bit like my desire for competition on the network, so not only maidsafe, but lots of teams.

Then as the network is running these designs etc. can be tested in the real world and shown to work. That then allows more decentralisation on a much bigger scale.

So while there are gonna be all sorts of use cases for the network early doors, I think any use of a real world network is gonna be terrific.

I personally would be happy to work with teams to introduce such a currency and identify ways to get it in place. I would hope there is way more than a single approach, but my bottom line is

• no fees
• no history
• one time keys

I would also switch to falcon or similar to make use of quantum secure signatures, which I believe w may need in 5 years or so.

[DavidMc0]

I agree with most of what you are saying, and see where you’re coming from, but there’s a key thing you’re missing that could give hope.

Here’s a brief video on how some bridges work:

@happybeing

Even a bridge won’t give safecoin value

@dirvine

I cannot see why somebody would swap a coin worth £1 for a coin with no dollar value at all and no way to get £ in the short term

Both you and David said a Native token would not have monetary value despite bridging, which indicates misunderstanding either of what a bridge is, or how arbitrage works.

Here’s how some crypto bridges work:

How do Crypto Bridges ACTUALLY Work? 3 Main Types Explained

An easy to use & secure 2-way bridge will ensure the value of a native token will remain very close to the value of the asset it can be bridged to / from (in this case ERC20 Network Tokens). This will be ensured by arbitrage.

This is why ETH on Arbitrum is worth 1 ETH, and why 1 wrapped Bitcoin is worth 1 BTC.

So immediately with a functioning bridge, 1 Native token would be worth 1 Network Token, and it would remain like that.

Given this, a bridge is what’s needed to enable ‘Safecoin’, and it’s possible to retain the ERC20 token while that is preferred for some applications.

We already see a native token paying nodes on the beta network. We would just need a nice wallet UI, and the bridge.

In short, a good 2 way Bridge is the only challenging thing in the way of a functioning Native token

It may be a big technical challenge, but anyone (in the team and community) who wants to see the Native Token operational should be keen to find a solution / solutions to 2 way bridging from ERC20 to Native transaction data type assets.

[loziniak]

@neo

Yes, I doubt 2 coins for payments will work because it will end up dividing rather than bring choice. The close 5 algo relies on all 5 nodes charging properly. If you have 2 methods and none of the 5 want to take your payments then your upload is sunk

I see this completely different. Nodes will accept payments in both currencies, as it will give them more profit, more clients wanting to pay.

As a result, they could maybe act like some kind of bridges? When you need more ERC20 to exit, you can set your nodes to accept ERC20, and when you need more Native Token to pay for data or service, you set your nodes to accept NT.