In the above statement you have said.
And
It cant be both now can it.
3 Likes
I am saying the dollar price of a PUT should be relatively stable. The price of a safecoin can vary because it will vary how many PUTs 1 safecoin gets you. Hence the price of a safecoin on the market should adjust to reflect what you can do with 1 safecoin today vs yesterday.
1 Like
Still though the theory is that as PUT safecoin price goes up, more farmers join resulting in more coins on the exchange driving the $$ price down and driving the PUT safecoin price down. And visa versa
Obviously delays occur
Thus the $$ price of safecoin will tend to a small range with some peaks either way. And that price should be around what people are happy to pay or provide space for.
2 Likes
There are only so many safecoins though. As the network grows farmers will be willing to accept less safecoins for 1 PUT. So the usefulness of 1 safecoin increases. Itâs actually a very HODLer friendly system. If you buy a safecoin and hold on to it the market value should go up as long as the network grows.
1 Like
Farmers have zero control over PUT safecoin price, other than joining or leaving. (ie amount of space available)
$$$ Price will only change according to the scarcity/glut of coins and what the perceived worth of the coins are. If PUT safecoin price is high then less PUTs done and thus glut of coins increase. But also more farmers means more coins are likely to be put up for sale, since those farmers joined to earn.
1 Like
and that is where the algorithm comes in. In a simplified sense, it starts out with the farmer offering to do a put for say 5 safecoin. If no one is willing to pay that it lowers the asking price to 4, then 3 and so on until it finds the max that people are willing to pay. As more farmers join the competition intensifies and safecoin cost for a PUT goes down until we find a supply/demand equilibrium.
Thatâs what I am getting at. If I can get more PUTs for a safecoin then I should perceive it as more valuable and be willing to pay more dollars for it on the market. Of course humans are not always completely logical creatures, or at least different people value a PUT at a different price, so it wonât be perfectly flat but we should find that on average people are willing to pay a set price for a PUT and they will buy safecoin if that condition is met. They should not care if they need to buy 10 safecoins for a dollar each to get 1 put or if they need to buy 1 safecoin for 10 dollars to buy 1 put
1 Like
I have read many if these and none have ever been accurate. Its just the wine speakingâŚ
So let me see if i understand this.
We have 2 variables: USD per SAFE and PUT per SAFE.
If the USD price of SAFE moves higher then the number of PUTs per SAFE could also just go higher, rendering the USD price of MAID meaningless (as far as the storage of data is concerned).
If buy 1 PUT for 1 SAFE at USD 1 per SAFE then it is the same as buying 1 PUT for a millionth of a SAFE at one million USD per SAFE.
1 Like
PS how much data is a PUT? Or is that our 3rd moving point on this piece of string?
Agreed. Because Safecoin has potential to serve more use cases beyond compensation for Network resources (e.g., dApp transactions, real-world monetary transactions, etc.) it seems like the market will/should set the price (or else relative âfiat valueâ) of Safecoin. The Network could then adjust how much resources a Safecoin can buy on the SAFE Network based on demand for resources. The Network could then dynamically broadcast the Safecoin price per PUT. For example:
- On day x the market might decide that the USD price of Safecoin is $500, and the network might decide that one Safecoin buys 10 TB of data storage.
- On day y, the market might decide the price of Safecoin is $1000, and the network can decide that one Safecoin buys 20 TB of data storage.
If the Network is âunawareâ of what the fiat value of Safecoin is, then this approach assumes that when the price of Safecoin doubled, the quantity of Network resources demanded and supplied also doubled. This example also assumes that the relative USD value of a terabyte of data remains constant, which will not be true over time. In this example, one TB is worth $50. A day will likely come when one TB will be worth $25 (or less). Perhaps the Network doesnât need to think about that, and only needs to balance based on supply vs. demand for Network resources.
I also realize that this thread is starting to stray into themes currently being discussed on RFC 57: Safecoin Revised
3 Likes
I am not sure what the minimum PUT is. I believe I read something about if its under 1.5 Mb then it is all on one node and not encrypted. For the purposes of this discussion I was trying to compare PUTs of the same size, so when I say PUT I just mean X amount of network resources.
Yes that is true. You would expect over time the USD price for 1 TB to gradually go down. By stable I just mean day to day or month to month it should be similar. Unless of course some new technology comes out that all of the sudden makes a TB much cheaper to add by farmers.
Yes it is. I was about to ask then why are we discussing making smaller units if the amount of safecoin needed for a PUT will always be on the same scale.
For those that still disagree lets do a thought experiment. If there was only 1 farmer then his resources are essentially worth ALL of the safecoin. If there are two then each gets half of that safecoin. So as the network grows the farmer pool gets diluted to more and more people. Now I canât tell you 100% for sure what the market will do in reaction but it seems logical that it would just say ok now a safecoin is worth more dollars because there are more resources available to buy with it.
Thatâs simply not true, though. The one farmerâs resources would only be worth all of the Safecoin if people are willing to give up all their Safecoin for his space.
Just because Safecoin has the direct utility of purchasing data storage does not mean that is the entirety of its usecase and the coin price is necessarily tied to it. You are assuming the amount of PUTs available has to equal the total amount of Safe in circulation in fiat price. I do not see that as the case. We could have Safecoin with a total market cap at $1B, but only $1M worth of available PUTs.
3 Likes
ok fair enough. I will add the caveat that I am only talking about the safecoin people are willing to spend on PUTs and not the safecoin that is being used for other purposes. Just saying out of that pool each coin represents a certain percentage of total avaliabe network resources and if the network is growing you would expect the amount each of those particular coins represent to grow also. Ya I donât doubt there are even more moving parts here. Was just trying to study the smallest number of variables that gives useful data.
Thanks for the responses, guys. The only conclusion I can draw is that if anyone dares to say that MAID is worth $x then he/she probably hasnât got a clue. This would exclude the argument that goes âI think it should be a top 10 coin and so itâs worth $2.7bn / 0.45bn, so $6â which is probably the only valid valuation method at the moment.
MAID is worth $x then he/she probably hasnât got a clue
I think thatâs fair (about all assets in general). The truth is that SAFE could go almost arbitrarily high or it could crash. The only way it could be valued 0 though is if the network simply doesnât work (we have strong clues that it will work) or if people donât believe it will persist. Otherwise, there should be a line drawn for the minimum price around the (discovered) hardware cost for providing comparable distributed storage. If the network is used and useful, then other aspects such as the value of uncensorable email, scalable currency will also be built in. I, and many others, think this is an asymmetric bet at current prices.
If buy 1 PUT for 1 SAFE at USD 1 per SAFE then it is the same as buying 1 PUT for a millionth of a SAFE at one million USD per SAFE.
Yes. PUTS are a specific amount of data write permissions. The SAFE/PUT ratio will adjust to maintain the fiat value of PUTS around the discovered cost of providing them, with some delay and oscillation.
2 Likes
Yes and since SAFE will also have utility to pay others, there is another uncertain variable to its price over time.
4 Likes
ya even right now its just as good as like DOGE or whatever your crypto token of choice to transact in is. We should set up a little market here were people can like buy and sell data storage hardware haha. Like I mean just do it up now since we can. Although later I think it might get a lot of activity from people wanting to buy farming hardware when the data layer is live.
1 Like
I like how the market depth on polo goes from 60+ BTC less then a week ago to 13 BTC today. There is some serious manipulation going on here. I say if you canât beat em join em though! Who else is ready to buy some cheap coins? I got my line in the water. I have to think if we all did that then there would be more ârealâ buy support anyways.
Last Sunday evening BTC jumped up 500 dollars in an instant. Waits patiently for more hours.
Well Iâd imagine that pushes down MAID/Satoshi price, regardless. Not much, if itâs like last week.
2 Likes
True it could have been ârealâ buy support that wanted the MAID but then when the offer for that BTC got too high this whale pulled out to cash that. Itâs just such an extreme shift though. I donât think we are going to see a stable fiat/MAID price when things like that happen. Like if he said oh BTC is up 5% so I will withdraw 5% of my buy support we might but its like this all at once FOMO move.