1 dollar…i would be happy with USD5. But different people have different greed levels…the higher the better of course…
3 Likes
The Beta network will be separate like Alpha 2,3,4 ?
Yes, and there is nothing saying there will be or will not be beta Version 1, version 2 etc.
Usually once the beta(s) are considered good enough then there will be the release candidates releases and these should as close as possible to the real thing.
Also there is no reason why the beta versions should take as long as the alphas did since they will only be bug fixes or minor feature additions (usually a UI feature).
Also some projects do not specifically have release candidates and they are simply the later beta versions
The final release candidate could even run for quite a while and simply then be called the release version.
2 Likes
That’s not how markets work. You have 452 million coins circulating on the market right now. Right now, these “5% investors” could not sell even if their life depended on it. On the day of launch, 215 million more coins come into circulation. That’s an instant 47.5% inflation of coin supply. Just because people know it will happen in advance doesn’t change the fact that supply increases by almost 50%.
That doesn’t make it better, it only makes the launch hype far worse, although drawn out longer. If we have 3-12 months of very limited supply and then all the new coins start rapidly come into the markets it’s going to be a massive pressure on the price.
As the estimation stated 430 million coins will drop on average per year for the first 5 years, let’s assume you are right in that the first year yields minuscule inflation.
The average does not vanish, and still must be 430 million per year. That means the 430 million we’re not getting during year 1 must be distributed across the remaining 4 years. To make the math simple, let’s assume an even distribution. 430 / 4 = 107.5. So each of the remaining years will have inflation of 430 + 107.5 = 537.5 million coins. While 430 million coins are spent, we also have 215 million of supply coming from the 5% investors. In order to accomplish what you call “minuscule inflation” I will set a target of 20% inflation, which is still pretty high, but to give you the benefit of doubt. That’s roughly 90 million coins. 215 - 90 = 125. So 125 million of that spent. We will split those 125 across the next 10 years, which yields 12.5 million per year during 4 years. 537.5 + 12.5 = 550 million
This yields us this 5 year estimate:
Year Start supply End supply Inflation per annum
--------------------------------------------------------------------
1 452,000,000 542,000,000 20%
2 542,000,000 1,092,000,000 101%
3 1,092,000,000 1,642,000,000 50%
4 1,642,000,000 2,192,000,000 33%
5 2,192,000,000 2,742,000,000 20%
Let’s take another example where coins spent is 215 million during year 1 and those 215 does not return back into supply before after 5 years (hence not even included here).
Starting supply: 452 million
New supply: + 215 million (5% investors) - 215 million deflation + 430 million avg inflation
Year Start supply End supply Inflation per annum
--------------------------------------------------------------------
1 452,000,000 882,000,000 95%
2 882,000,000 1,312,000,000 49%
3 1,312,000,000 1,742,000,000 33%
4 1,742,000,000 2,172,000,000 25%
5 2,172,000,000 2,602,000,000 20%
No matter how you twist and bend this, the inflation will be very high in the early stages, you can maybe (and that’s a wild guess) push it ahead by a year, but as you can see you’ll get a big backlash in year 2 with 101% inflation. Even if you could push it further, that just means we will have more inflation in the subsequent years!
Lol, ok, sure bud.
Look at this numbers above? How on earth are you coming to the conclusion that I have “moderated” my original view? It turns out it’s much worse than I originally thought. The word you are looking for is not moderated, it’s exacerbated. You have not just been misreading “a later post”, you’ve been consistently misreading me from the start AND throwing insults while doing so.
BTW when you say inflation of the coin it suggest a decrease in its intrinsic value and is why some have not liked your posts. The SAFECOIN will not lose any intrinsic value since that is in the network and is used to buy resources. If any value is lost or gained it is in the fiat value.
Intrinsic value is meaningless. The only value is that of which we humans treasure. If nobody is using the invention it’s essentially valueless. If we only consider the project as a whole and ignore investors, it makes perfect sense to have high inflation and dilute the holders for “the good of the project”. That however, does not alter the facts of what it entails to do so.
This is what I meant by the coin being a utility coin. For the SAFE network safecoin’s value is what it can do for “you” in the network and in that its value does not change because of the number of coins. If there is any change then it changes because of the amount of available space on the network. That really is a perceived change.
Nor have I argued that. We all know a car is still a car even if it costs $1. In fact, if the usefullness of maid outweights the price it could be underpriced. But if we all could snap a finger and have a car fall down from the sky the value of cars would be low, despite the usefulness remaining high. Supply and demand.
One little note to make: The price of a safecoin, the supply and inflation rates all do impact the usefulness of the coin. A coin with a marketcap of $100 can only store $100 worth of goods and is not going to be able to transact in any deals larger than $100. These things play an important role in the degree of usefulness.
2 Likes
Its out of date, and will depend on algo used, it may give an idea though. Also it did not take into account the negative growth that is likely to happen early on. So using it as an absolute truth is not a good idea.
For instance we do not know if the desired/expected growth rate in the coins existing will be 200 million a year after the initial period or 400 million per year. And the actual may not match the desired either. It could be well below the expected with more PUTs as people load up the network and people give a lot of storage. That would mean a lot more coins destroyed than expected and the farming rate very much lower than expected. Then again it could be that little spare storage exists and the farming rate ends up real high and lots of coins are created above desired/expected.
Also have you considered what another brought up and that is how much the coin is sought after will affect the price. Demand for the coin could be very high as people want to join the network.
So I cannot agree with your hard and fast holding to that graph which I’ve explained is out of date because of at least one factor it did not consider. And I feel you dismiss too much of what others say. And frankly I think that demand will mean that a 38% increase (max) year one then ?25% increase year two and reducing %age each year will be sustainable considering the need for coin to store data and use the network.
You know @neo, it’s pretty funny that you start out like this:
I did the reading and used the estimates listed in white paper to present my argument, and now you’re telling me that the estimates are “out of date” and that we don’t know what the inflation rate will be. What reading specifically is it that I need to do to find facts? I just want to know the facts, but it seems you have none.
As you yourself say:
Well, then currently this is our best idea and we have to base the argument around it. Maybe the “algorithm” will change, but you don’t know how. It’s conspicuously convenient how you changed the tone from “check your facts” to “there are no facts” when the calculations were presented. Is it the math showing flaws in your first argument that resulted in this change of heart? Or do you have some information about the algorithm that we don’t have? If so, why don’t you present it? I’m sure everyone here is eager to know.
Also it did not take into account the negative growth that is likely to happen early on.
But so did my calculation. The rest of your post is speculation, I would like to see some numbers. But from what I gather you have zero clue about the emission rate, so there’s not much to discuss. I do think basing estimates on the white paper until new info comes out is the only sensible thing. Even if they are not going to be 100% correct and are just that, estimates.
Also have you considered what another brought up and that is how much the coin is sought after will affect the price. Demand for the coin could be very high as people want to join the network.
Yes. It will certainly affect the price. But these are two contrarian forces. More demand may offset some of the more supply, but less supply would have resulted in a higher price.
And frankly I think that demand will mean that a 38% increase (max) year one then ?25% increase year two and reducing %age each year will be sustainable considering the need for coin to store data and use the network.
Show your calculation please, right now this is just numbers out of thin air. I would like to see you present a 5 year case.
3 Likes
Selective quoting. The emission graph was out of date not the whole.
Then I can say no more. You have used limited information from one source, where I said do reading of both the paper and the discussions (which include later info).
So I’ll leave you with your analysis, which BTW is not bad and my opinion is just missing some inputs that others have tried to give you.
Well with respect so is yours since the algorithm has not been written and using out of date emission calcs.
I did try and take the latest information posted in the forums about what happens with spare space vs PUT rates vs Farming calcs that has been suggested in an RFC. So I tend to disagree that its pure speculation on my part.
Yea, I gave it above with the 38% (of course it could be lower). The same for me and you exact calculations of actual emissions is speculation. And we both gave our reasons and what we were basing it on.
tl;dr
I don’t think I can add more here. I have model this about 2/3 year ago and the results are very much dependent upon a few factors (spare space, just how fast people PUT data early on, number of farmers and some minor factors). Without knowing these factors for a certainty the exact time for negative growth of coins existing is not known and the growth rate thereafter cannot be know. What is known is that if SAFE is successful then that curve you used has to be significantly modified.
Don’t expect much more from me around this because as you say it is significantly speculative.
2 Likes
It was the emission table I was referencing to.
Then I can say no more. You have used limited information from one source, where I said do reading of both the paper and the discussions (which include later info).
Discussions != conclusions. If those discussions have led to conclusions that I can use in my estimates I would be happy to include that. Got link? I’m not interested in guesses and wild speculation, only facts and conclusions (and estimates based upon those)
It’s not quite clear how you got to that number. I’d like to see the calculation in whole.
Yea, I gave it above with the 38% (of course it could be lower). The same for me and you exact calculations of actual emissions is speculation. And we both gave our reasons and what we were basing it on.
Sure, but mine is based on estimates from the white paper which arguably is closer to reality, you claim they are out of date, do you have a source for that?
I don’t think I can add more here. I have model this about 2/3 year ago and the results are very much dependent upon a few factors (spare space, just how fast people PUT data early on, number of farmers and some minor factors). Without knowing these factors for a certainty the exact time for negative growth of coins existing is not known and the growth rate thereafter cannot be know. What is known is that if SAFE is successful then that curve you used has to be significantly modified.
Don’t expect much more from me around this because as you say it is significantly speculative.
At least then investors must be warned that there’s a very unclear emission schedule where almost 4 billion coins will be dropped on the market at an unknown time schedule. This is a significant dilution of investors and not knowing when it will happen is a serious risk that cannot be underestimated when making an investment in the project or doing price predictions.
I think you’ve reached a fair conclusion. Remember also that the 4B isn’t really a cap, as the coins get recycled.
2 Likes
I appreciate your arguments and your aiming for accuracy. I’m not sure about a a special “warning” being needed, though. It says pretty clearly here that:
There is no set distribution time for the 4.3 billion Safecoin produced during the life of the SAFE Network.
https://safenetwork.tech/faq/#whats-the-use-of-safecoin-in-the-safe-network
Things are just not ready yet and personal feuds are not constructive.
7 Likes
Exactly as Sascha said. To create a warning about a fact that is clearly stated in plain view would be… I don’t know what.
Should it be like:
Warning: There is no set distribution time for the 4.3 billion Safecoin produced during the life of the SAFE Network.
Instead of:
There is no set distribution time for the 4.3 billion Safecoin produced during the life of the SAFE Network.
Sorry for the confusion. To clarify I don’t mean an “official warning”. I mean more in the sense that when inflation is brought up it should not be disregarded because “we don’t know the schedule yet”. It should be a warning of a great unknown: that it’s likely safecoin will inflate heavily for the first 5-10 years in the project.
But do we even know that much yet?
2 Likes
The white paper has stated that 98% will come out during the first 10 years, so I would argue yes. You can say that the white paper is outdated, but without any proof of the claim that it’s no longer valid it’s hard to take your word for it. Secondly, changing the distribution completely from what is presented in the white paper would be odd.
1 Like
Please, someone rage-quit already so we can call the bottom.
Somebody already did that around ~3200 sat, they dumped 100 BTC worth of MAID 
You are absolutely right. It would help, if we could get some comment on this from Maidsafe.
My own view is that the whitepaper isn’t based on the most recent discussion and views. It is not aware of the “inner workings” of the Safecoin and thus cannot be correct. I’m also not sure if we can ever know what the rate of new coins will be in any given timeframe, since it is so dependent on how people use the network.
3 Likes
I gather they are working on an updated whitepaper now:
3 Likes
Hi Warz, thanks for your thought provoking posts.
Some comments:
Bitcoin, Ethereum et al. (projects all still in early adopter phase of the S-Curve btw) do not have instant private transfer of value, two features that Safecoin will have given everything goes according to the spec. As hard examples of what may come to pass, see the few recent coins that have attempted to hack even just one of these Safecoin features into a public blockchain. Most like zcash have experienced robust growth (in users base and fiat monetary value) in a very short amount of time. Safecoin will go one step further with both more comprehensive privacy than anything that has come before, near instant transfers and no transfer fees (perhaps - we will see). As so far there has been no major technical barrier and reliable progress towards this goal then I agree that there will be an up hill battle, but it will be the public blockchain projects attempting to catch upto Safe Network - not the other way around. As an aside, the Safe Network will also securely and anonymously store data in the worlds first autonomous permissionless network - the developer need for this cannot be understated. Trying to yardstick off the existing permissioned centralised and expensive cloud service file hosting market (all two of them) is like estimating the size and demand for the internet in 1991 based off the market size of Microsoft and IBM, IMO.
On inflation, I am getting the vibe you consider it a negative to owning MaidSafeCoin as an investment :
Early massive Inflation of Crypto-currencies == lower prices/bad for early investors is not supported by most of the big name cryptocurrency projects examples that we have so far. As you say “If nobody is using the invention it’s essentially valueless.” Agreed. However without massively inflating the supply and getting it into as many hands a possible, then the project at worse will be dead in the water and essentially valueless. At best looking forward to a very slow grind growth rate on the back of a few early investors that hold the utility coin, in spite of the superior tech. BTC mining’s asymptotic exponential inflation in the early days, air drops (aka massive early inflation) and many more examples abound in the crypto space - what matters is stimulating the all important network effect using massive early inflation to fuel that productive growth in the most organic and distributed manner possible.
To expand on this using Cryptoasset Monetary Inflation convenient list:
We have Inflation for
blockchain security (in Safe's case, autonomous network security)
participation correctness
protocol-level development incentivization
Redistribution and incentivization
It would be helpful if you clarify more about exactly what type of inflation your against, or perhaps you only see “bad” inflation in this project Vs all the others that have come before?
So far your argument appears to be solely from a sound money perspective.
2 Likes
Are you talking MAID or BTC or warz discussion?
p.s. @warz the benefit of massive early coin inflation is to protect the network, and your data, from an attack vector where a few malevolentor greedy whales/sharks kill the system when it is in it’s infancy. This is a good thing for people that actually want to use their MAID to buy network resources for data security and not just speculate.