Unit bias is something that exists - a lot of people hate having 0.00001 of something and they like to have millions of it. This is one of the reasons why madness like copies of bitcoin with a color picture of a dog stick to them are so popular - reference Shiba Inu…
4.3 billion Safe tokens is better than 450 million Safe tokens.
Privacy. Security. Freedom
Is it really though, see my thoughts here and tell me where I have gone wrong.
I couldn’t tell you 
there is so much to consider. I think I see what you mean though. Maybe it makes hoarding more attractive than farming? Is that kind of what you are touching on?
Not really, the incentive to farm remains but in my opinion the incentive to increase my MAID holding goes through the roof too.
Not saying that it is neccesarily bad other than centralization of course!
(Centralized is a poor choice of wording there)
I’m not as insanely worried about distribution to holders as I am network sections or a network wallet, actor.
Bitcoin was mined by a small community early on and they had tons of bitcoins. Some were lost, many were held, many were sold. What we see now is that though there are still many whales, the whales are getting smaller and distribution is getting better.
We may have large holders but as long as we have farming, and sellers, the distribution will improve. Question is will it take many years or will it be a big dump early on?
Interested to hear more of peoples thoughts on market making as well.
I see the exact opposite, Bitcoin ownership is becoming more and more centralized, which is normal after trading against something that is printed from the air:
Privacy. Security. Freedom
I disagree, 450 million sound like valuable, 4.3 billion is more in line with penny stocks.
Really have to be careful here, this sounds like a stock split and it can be catastrophic if not done properly. 1:1 would be safer in my mind, have to really thread carefully with the economy, one bad move and it’s a collapse! As an investor I can say I do not like this idea!
One example that comes to mind is OXY. They moved over to the ETH chain with a 1:10 ratio, the move was catastrophic, it was dumped into oblivion. No longer being traded anywhere. Lost 15k on that venture…
Don’t think we need that many tokens when the system goes live, we just need the ability to split, it will be years before more than a few thousands people start using this regardless if it works or not. Adoption is not something that happen overnight, it will be a long road before we even need more tokens.
It may be so, but I think there are also reasons to be unsure. For example, for there to be a run, or let’s say enough buying to impact price at least, a lot of people would need to know about this, come to the same conclusion, and have funds they’re willing to risk.
I think that’s doubtful because MAID is already for those who know it a very attractive proposition compare to other projects. There should be more accumulation already based on where the project is and its potential.
So I’m doubtful whatever we do (split, cap etc) will have much impact on demand. No way to be sure of any of this, but I would expect a split to dramatically affect fiat price because those who are trading will understand the dilution. I don’t see that as a problem though.
Agreed.
1:1 capped at the current MAID supply is the safest option.
I feel those who are in it for the long haul are here already, the 1:9 carrot will bring all kinds of issues to the table.
Why 1:1 would be safer than any other number makes no sense.
As @T824601 thought MAID was traded on Binance earlier, then he probably don’t know about SNT was supposed to launch with 450 million and then get 1000% inflation over time.
It would be wanted to not need to buy stuff in decimals like BTC, so a 90 000:10 000 would be nice. 9:1 SNT\MAID would give very much to investors who took huge risk during a very long time. Hard to be against such propsal if it don’t compromise a successful network.
Unfortunately it’s the safer of two bad options to my mind.
Don’t you think so much centralisation of coins is a bad thing? I do.
Don’t you think it will put ppl of joining the network knowing the pie is already cut and served and they can’t just carve themselves out a nice slice of pie that is still sat on the table? Again, I do.
Agreed mate, hopefully sound minds take time to reflect how this may affect the price. As a 1:10 increase does not mean it will decrease the price by only a factor of 10. These markets are not rational, we can’t expect a change like this to have little effect.
Definitely have to be careful before making any rash decisions!
That’s a valid point, on the other hand, knowing for sure that the network can’t be taken over and a section print itself unlimited money is a strong point over “we think it’s secure but there’s no way to know if a section has been owned and is minting SNT without limit”.
If SNT was blockchain like BTC then it would be a different story as blockchains need to mine new coins because trading fees don’t give any significant profits.
On Safe farmers only need to get paid for storage they sell as that will cover cost and profit. If funds would be needed to balance huge drop in price, than that would be something to consider.
Yes, I get that, I’d just like to see more options on the table.
I hope between us we can come up with a plan that keeps things secure but still allows us to aim for the network as originally envisioned in respect to coin allocation.
As the team have a better understanding of how the network works than myself and what is plausible its probably better that they give thought to this rather than me.
Speculation, we won’t know till we know.
I believe they are, and is why the original plan was so elegant.
And it would not be 1:10 but 10:1 as you would get more and not diluted as 1:10 would mean.
Speculation
Subjective, lacking logic
Why can’t I get better reply than “speculation” on my previous comment, please give some form comment with substance next time. I made what I consider a valid logic assumption based on how a system should work if the network sells data at free floating supply and demand.
I explained my opinion above.
The current MAID holders only own a small percentage of the proposed total supply of SNT but the new proposal in my opinion will attract people who have zero interest in the project to now accumulate significant amounts of the total SNT that will exist, simply buy accumulating MAID.
The goal of owning a large portionof all SNT was not easy/possible to achieve with the network dispersing SNT when needed over time.
Of course the current holders would need to sell to these new speculators that would like to control large amounts of the fully diluted cap.
It seems preferable to go 1:1 and have long term supporters in control (if there is no other option)
I seem to be a minority in this conclusion/view so have no doubt it will be argued 
Yes my preference would be for the network to pay out as originally planned… but, why? because that is what we know as the norm?
It does not mean this will not work.