I definitely see where you’re coming from but hear me out. The long term supporters in that scenario would still proportionally be in control in either scenario, would they not? We want the the network and if the higher ratio is favorable to network security, are we not some of the best stewards?
2 Likes
Norm for what? please elaborate.
I’m going to have trouble having a reasonable discussion with you, if me saying speculation in answer to your statement is not enough for you then why use it in answer to one of mine?
Then you say I’m lacking logic, when my logic is clearly laid out in the few posts I’ve made in this thread.
Look at my other posts and if you have specific questions I’ll try and answer them.
Agreed, psychologically I think people would be more willing to part with a portion of their current holdings knowing that 10000 will be 90000 at launch.
I would support it.
Creating the tokens and then holding them somewhere seems like an unnecessary risk.
I feel like a middle ground would be most preferable.
But for me it is most important that there are good rational reasons and risk\saftey consideration for what ever system is choosen.
It would also be nice if a professor in macro\monetary-economics, a mathematician and a theoretical phycist sat at a table and discussed the economics systems pros and cons.
1 Like
Just for the record, me too. Call me crazy but I’ve got a gut feeling the higher ratio may be more favorable.
Actually pretty interesting @Dimitar about the supply bias of having more coins. A lot of these cheap coins are cheap because the supply is so high, like doge. It takes way more to move that market substantially but people truly believe it can moon to insane prices, I think because of a lack of understanding tbh. If they were to understand the scarcity concept of bitcoin they would choose a lower supply alt coin as opposed to technologically equivalent alt coin with a higher supply but they do not.
If we have a higher supply from the get go with the same prices, what changes?
OTOH, how does the 85% being released over time affect the network and price. @19eddyjohn75 had great points in another thread about inflation and growth. If you have to farm to avoid inflation maybe that is a good thing for network growth but not for your long term HODL bag.
A lot to consider.
2 Likes
Whatever reason for any supply other than the practical ease of use, is a falacy.
If any psychological effects above short term, would it matter? If something is good then it is good, no matter the supply.
If you can buy something with 12.34 instead of 0.001234, that would make it better and easier in a practical way. If people are not good or comfortable with math then it is also easier not having to use decimals as much. It would give for easier mass adoption.
Example of Indifference to supply:
To own 1000 of 1 000 000 or 10 000 of 10 000 000 is a indifferent choice.
Does supply effect ease of use?
100% agree. I suppose I’m semi impartial about supply really. I just want enough decimals so that no matter what price appreciation that micro and nano transactions are still possible over the long term. So that would probably lean towards higher supply.
1 Like
Yes
Extreme example:
Max supply 1 coin.
Market cap 100 billion.
8.5 dollar purchase.
Price = 1\100 000 000 000*8.5= 0. 000 000 000 085
Price 0.000 000 000 085
Max supply 1000 billion
Market cap 100 billion
8.5 dollar purchase.
8.5*1000\100= 85
Price 85
1 Like
Yes (imo).
2 Likes
I had always thought that part of it being an autonomous network was the network itself having the ability to issue and recycle coins.
I actually like the idea of a fixed supply as it’s easier to understand, and would seem to me more likely to make the coins hold their value, but I am now confused as to how the actual network would operate. If I pay to store data, those coins are sent directly to the farmers who are providing the storage space? As opposed to the coins being sent to the network itself first, and the network allocating them amongst the farmers?
3 Likes
I’m confused about the idea that all SNT’s could be created at launch and that no more can be created - how can we have subdivision and decimal places if that’s the case?
Remember this poll done by @neo a couple of years ago: RFC 57: Safecoin Revised - Specific Question concerning Safecoin size and Number + Polls - #3 by neo
This poll was done before the idea of the network not holding tokens though … So if this were to be followed under this new idea, then 1MAID == ?? – even more tokens!
The 6.7 is based on the original 15%
10% for MAID holders and 5% held in reserve for shareholders (in the original documents)
FYI You missed the 5% for shareholders.
Yep, and all held by a few. Also those few have more control than the new farmers until hoarding stops and SNT are released. Under the 10+5% at start it will take a lot less time for new farmers to feel they have some control and value a lot earlier. IE satisfaction for more people.
Agreed, that centralisation for users not in terms of network. See above for one quick thought.
On the counter side is the issue of creating tokens. Well thats solved by having all tokens existing at launch and sections (or similar) holds the 85% at launch.
Now on the counter counter side (3rd side) is the issue of having a suitable system for sections to hold the 85%.
This is my major concern. Its the %age of the 4 billion that will be sat on during the early stages to mid stages of the network. With only 15% at launch then the same relative amount is sat on, but only represents 1/6.7 of the 4 billion and that will release more to new farmers because the network early on will be digging into the 85% and pay farmers more equability for their service while keep store cost lower. The original papers had this last for up to 20 years resulting in more satisfaction for more people.
3 Likes
I would rather see at lunch 1 MAID = 1 SNT
2 years later 1 SNT = 2 SNT
2 years later 1 SNT = (max supply/actual supply) SNT
If you look into the network’s sybil defense mechanism, you will see that it’s not a good idea to give farmers (especially those coming later to the party) that kind of control. Who are these new farmers and what are their intentions towards a network that’s potentially now popular with powerful attackers trying to take it down? We can’t know. A safer assumption is that a reasonably large number of people who continued to support the network when all else wrote it off will continue to do the right thing for that network especially when they are proven right and it works. The MAID token has been publicly traded for 7 years, available to all. Anyone could become a supporter and steward of the network at any time.
That is a far fairer distribution than many other networks have done. And when counting networks that withhold their supply for sybil reasons, the suggested proposal is far fairer and more decentralized. I mean, I found out about the Safe Network well after most of you here, and yet I don’t see the proposal as centralizing because I’m foremost interested in the network being viable which can benefit my own projects. “Centralization” would be if MaidSafe took control of the supply as many other developers do ostensibly for sybil reasons. But they are proposing the literal opposite of that.
That’s before getting to the very pertinent consideration of taking mutation powers away from elders.
Overall, we should let MaidSafe decide and not raise too much of a stink for them because they have shown to make the right technology call. And I see the proposal as more of a technology call that is yet, all things considered, fair and economically viable (can elaborate on the latter in a different post when I have time).
At the end of the day, we just need the network launched as soon as possible. And the simplest and safest path should be taken to allow for that. As long as the network can be upgraded, any miscalculation can be remedied. But let’s at least get a stable version of the network out rather than delaying it to satisfy every last word uttered during the ICO.
8 Likes
The security of the network in my understanding needs as many new farmers as we can have. And widespread too. Not left to a more centralised group. Anonymity increases as nodes increases.
We need to attract them and people thinking the rewards they get are tiny compared to existing will in my opinion have less become farmers than if they feel there is still that 85% to be farmed. Yes its a lot of perception.
Thats how I feel anyhow.
2 Likes
The network only accepts new nodes when more storage space is needed, i.e., when data is uploaded. For data to be uploaded, tokens are required (to be paid to the existing nodes already in place). The more data is uploaded, the more nodes will be onboarded. (I detailed in another post before how we should make allowance for more nodes to be onboarded by tweaking the definition of “full” node).
The Safe Network is different from typical blockchains (you know this) in that it isn’t the typical “mining”. It doesn’t matter whether the tokens “mined” come from the network itself or from the uploaders; node providers will get their pay/share either way (store cost remains unaffected). The question is should the network be saddled with the responsibility of holding those tokens thus providing an incentive for bad actors? I think not. And I definitely do not think the network should be delayed further to investigate that question as it’s been answered by many other crypto projects and the solution proposed here is a good compromise that removes a lot of complexity.
Edit to add: as you say, a lot of it is perception. But should we let fears of bad perception force a network design that handicaps it? That wasn’t the case when it came to the bad perception of not using blockchain.
5 Likes
Bitcoin has a simple reward mechanism that issues a steady stream of rewards to miners that is governed by difficuly/hashing power.
It is hard to see why the safe network (at the very least) could not have a simple rate of issuance that is governed by section count and available storage to issue the remaining 85% after genesis. The bitcoin “halvening” is analogous to reducing rewards after a section split.
Actually while I still feel the 85% of the tokens at launch are in the “hands” of the sections has many benefits and outweigh everyone getting 6.7 per MAID. I know there are pros for the 6.7 per MAID. I know it certainly is not a clear case of one is absolutely right.
What I would like to get is how the process from uploaders to farmers will process if its all done by DBCs without the sections ever holding the tokens. If I had that process of how that works then it would give a better picture.
BTW mining was never in my consideration when thinking of this. When the 85% was thought of in the original papers it allowed for the rewards to actually be higher than just what the uploaders gave because the 85% was meant to be mostly used up and close to balancing point occurring around 10 to 20 years.
Rewards would then be on average higher given the same conditions in the network. Store cost would also be lower. Not twice or anything, but higher/lower and more consistent across the network. Also less affected due to external effects.
While farmers are only added with space requirements, perceptions will play a part on who wishes to become a farmer. Will it be the ones who already have loads of tokens wanting more, or new people decide its a favourable choice? Perception will play a part. Higher rewards or perceived better ownership odds will attract a wider audience for the network to choose from, in my opinion.
Is this to say all tokens given out at the start will not work, no i am not saying that, but on the balance of things is what i am looking at. And knowledge of how DBCs will allow uploaders → farmers directly in an anonymous way would help a lot
3 Likes