A thought: When Google launched Gmail it never actually officially “launched” – rather it was in “perpetual beta”. I.e. they just kept on on-boarding people, growing steadily for years via invite (nobody did it that way back then), until one day they took that tiny “beta” label off without fanfare.
Matter of semantics, and a very small detail, but I think that tiny mark was an important UX detail. Even though the system was fully operational for years, it signaled that things are still being improved and worked on, and it kept users open/forgiving to changes big and small while the system was young. The invite process also upped the excitement and also grew the network organically.
another interesting article:
I can see the pros and cons of the above strategies ( you want nodes as fast as possible, invite doesn’t make sense for “SAFE for everyone” etc) – but am curious either way to see if the community already has thoughts on the launch process. Personally wouldn’t mind not having a “launch day” but rather slowly seeing the network grow.
I suspect that the launch day will create a bubble in the price of the maidsafecoin token and that’s unfortunate. I like the idea of not having a launch day and I think it would be the best way forward, but I also think it’s too late to stop it now. Dev’s and community seem committed to it.
I’m not sure that they are. When I look at the roadmap, they lay out several things they want to accomplish in Beta, ending with the introduction of Safecoin, but there is no commitment to any kind of launch date, or event, that I can see.
There’s no avoiding such an event from happening. Any diligent person will recognize the introduction of the live safecoin and as such there will be a fluctuation that reflects the demand to test the safecoin.
Interesting timing, @ioptio and I started to discuss launch activities in more detail yesterday. I agree that it is inevitable that we will have a launch day of the platform and we are also likely to pick an event(s) for the ‘official’ launch of the platform, we want to tell as many people about it after all. I wonder if the price spike will also be mitigated slightly by the fact that as soon as there is a running network, the volume of safecoins available will increase.
If it does, it will affect the following dip at least equally hard. The bad aspect of a spike is the downward slope. In my view that cannot be solved by an increase in volume, unless the volume can also be contracted when the demand falls.
So I think the real question is how to prevent a price dip, or in other words, how to somewhat stabilize/level the demand over an extended period of time:
Deliver what is expected. If people’s expectations are too high,
inform them to change their expectations. Don’t over-sell the
network’s features in order to prevent people from leaving
afterwards, and thus dumping their SafeCoin.
Encourage newcomers to farm SafeCoins instead of buying them. If there
is concern that there won’t be any data to be farmed, encourage
people/communities/companies in advance to store their data on SAFE
at launch day (and thus buy MaidSafeCoin well in advance). With an empty network, SAFE’s algorithms should set an extremely low data PUT price anyway.
Current SafeCoin holders could sell their SafeCoin at and right after launch, and buy them back when the demand starts to fall, at little to no profit.
And all the newcomers will feel ripped off when the price goes in free fall and will leave, spread the word of a pump-and-dump scheme, etc. A huge spike will definitely harm SafeCoin’s reputation and growth, so it’s especially bad for those who are in for the long term. It’s only good for those who want to dump at the top of the spike for quick profit.
Note that only one of my three suggestions involved directly affecting the market. The first two are all about informing people to have a smoother and satisfactory launch.
I don’t think we will need to encourage this too much, not many pay for something that they can get for close to free.
This is a tough sell, I can’t see many wanting to sell their safecoins right as they are increasing in price and taking a risk in order that they can get them back if the price dips later on.
To be honest, I personally don’t think there is much anyone can do with avoid price fluctations with crypto currencies, the supply volume is so low, making it really easy to move the market with even relatively small trades. The total supply of bitcoin is currently $4.3 billion, which is minuscule when compared with FIAT (The total USD supply ((M4)) is around $17 trillion).
PS: I agree with your comments about responsible marketing btw and providing sufficiently accurate levels of expectation.
IMO if anyone from MaidSafe starts entertaining ideas on how to “manage” the price to avoid “spikes”, that would not only be bad, but would expose them to potential legal issues. (Even if they don’t actually do anything).
It is impossible to quantify (except through the price) expectations.
Also it is their responsibility to always set realistic expectations. Telling someone to set their expectations higher or lower would be like leading the witness (to target price).
What if too many people end up mining and don’t make a cent?
Who would be held responsible for the encouragement?
There’s nothing that needs to be done and IMO the best MaidSafe folks can do is to do nothing out of ordinary.
It’s interesting you mention this-- I’ll be launching some hardware ~Feb 2015 and it is going to be perma-beta, too. Of course, part of that is because of what GOOG did re: the HDK for project ARA: They artfully dodged FCC reqs by classifying the project as a beta to be used by developers who assume the burden of operating the device within FCC reqs on their own.
Perma-beta also lets customers know to expect your product to evolve.
If you want to insult me (I really don’t care), please at least add some on-topic content so that I don’t waste my time reading your reply.
My first comment was obviously sarcastic (and rightly so because the idea is totally ludicrous), but since you didn’t seem to get the joke (and the message) in my second comment I nicely explained the nature of the problem. Obviously it didn’t work.
If you think that the price of the token(s) can be “managed” without exposing the organization to enormous legal risks, let us know.