A lot of good points made in the last little while. I have always done my mental math with the full amount of SAFE in circulation, lets call it 4B for ease of discussion. The question is what value can the network have and how does that scale with size? Metcalfe’s law? Is dilution really the risk under a scenario where we are talking about a large network? Or are other risks far more salient?
Bitcoin has a market cap of 120B with 550k unique addresses, most of them surely not really significant. From the chart posted above, 99% dilution occurs with 500k nodes, but who knows… I sure wouldn’t put stock in that. I will however state flat out that a SAFE node is a far better indication of network success and value than a bitcoin address. Users of course can far exceed nodes. If SAFE ever actually hits a half million contributing nodes, I don’t think dilution will be an issue… at that point it would be one of the hardest networks on the planet, supporting tons of possible services.
I do think the issues rather lie with the network simply not working or having serious issues while scaling (it won’t be truly secure until there are a great many nodes, perhaps not 500k, but a lot more than it is likely to start with). I think the network will work and thus think of the second worse case in terms of a company like dropbox (10B cap). Right now, we are priced like SAFE is 8% as valuable as dropbox (fully diluted), which is probably somewhere from high to reasonable considering execution risk versus utility we know exists. So this is the bet… can SAFE be as useful as dropbox? If you think that there is at least an 8% weighted expectation of that + some for time value, then it is a fair price. The market seems to have a huge gap between skeptics and those believing in the larger vision. One group will be disappointed, but even achieving a fraction of the potential could result in a reasonable (not moonshot) return from here. I’m obviously on record as considering this a really fair bet at present.