We’re going a bit off topic but want to note that I:
don’t see effort or intention of evolution, so this is not required
don’t see where/how damage is accumulated from making “mistakes” in such an adaptive approach
All mistakes are opportunities to learn and improve, and evolutionary systems do this with simple strategies that are spectacularly resilient because they are less discriminating and involve making “mistakes” far more than say most human learning techniques.
Both are valid, both are effective, but they have different character. So I’m suggesting you are choosing based on one, the latter, but that there’s an argument for both. Which means including diverse approaches and also the “mistakes” that go with them, have value in that case
Haha, yeah was just trying to be more specific and it came off creepy I guess.
Say if you want to incentivize sharing or curation of data by rewarding a token that can be redeemed for content. It could literally be a ton of things. It’s up to the imagination and the flexibility of salts can provide that. Another example is Clikes for project decorum.
it would be a waste(of tech) for not allowing alts, Safe is so great for efficient coin transfers.
Some other Safe clone might allow it, and then people move there…
In the last dev update there was talk making it possible to prepay updates to mutable data, so I would think then the developer could pay for the user.
I wasn’t referring to token transaction fees. I was talking about the actual cost to store app/game data on Safe. This will need SNT no matter what. The developer won’t be able to pre-pay for this when the salt token is generated because they won’t know the cost to PUT in the future. The app developer could pay for all the PUTs, but then the information becomes the app developers data, not the users. This may be fine for your freemium model, but it breaks the Safe model. That is a core problem/issue imo.
Maybe. Depends on implementation. But if you go that route, why not just have the developer stake X amount SNT for Y amount salt from the beginning. The salt would have SNT baked in and could be directly used by the user as long as the salt value could cover the PUT charge.
Example: Dev pays network 1 SNT for 1000000 salt. The developer then sells the salt to game/app users for a total of 2 SNT. Now when playing the game, the users will just need to pay a floating price per game operation based on how many PUTs it consumes. The network will except the salt as payment for PUT since 1 saltcoin = 1E-6 SNT. The developer can cover their development costs because they sold the salt for 2X what they paid. End of story.
Look up the safe crossroads podcast where @fergish interviews Harmen. There are two I think. Here’s one and I think he goes into it a bit. To give you the gist, it’s to promote content. https://soundcloud.app.goo.gl/wt6QB1bYSiCWSeaHA
I think there are a few orthogonal axes of things that one could do with tokens that are relevant here: Fungible and Non-Fungible, Transferrable and non-Transferrable, Sellable for SNT, not sellable… and it seems to me that Safe should support all use cases.
Fungible, Transferrable, not salable → Airline reward miles
I think project native tokens are essential on SAFE to be able to get users, incentivise partnerships and bootstrap growth. The alternative is to go back to an ICO or VC model, which both come with their own problems.
Longhash ventures recently produced a thorough document on tokenomics, which is definitely worth a read for anyone interested in this kind of thing.
The full report is available to download at the bottom of this medium article
I think “trick users” is a better way of putting it.
That’s pretty much my point. I’m sure there will be a lot of scams of diffrent types on the Safe network, but I don’t see them as essential for anybody but the scammers. Of course, I might be wrong, and that’s why I’m interested in this discussion.
I listened to the interview with harmen and fergish that was posted above. The “coin-like” clikes were discussed. The way I understand it is that clikes operate just like the regular likes we use on the forum. The difference is that people need to pay for them, and so they are more valuable. If someone gives you a clike, you know they liked your statement or activity enough to pay money to say so. People are putting their money where they mouth is, and that’s where the added value is generated. As far as other details go, I have no idea. It would make sense to me if the clike is transferred between users as a type of micro-donation show of support that could be accumulated and sold to support an artist’s, writer’s or musician’s work, kind of like a micro-patreon, but I don’t think this is the case…
It’s easier for me when I just think of it as “themed” SNT. That metaphor works if a certain amount of SNT is required to create the salt theme. The issuer pays X amount of SNT to create Y amount of salt. The salt is directly convertable back to SNT by the user if they choose at no less than a rate of X/Y. Market conditions might make it more valuable. For example, the issuer may pay 1 SNT to create the salt, but then sells it to their user base for a total of 10 SNT. There doesn’t necessarily need to be a transaction fee since the salt is destroyed/consumed when converted by the user. To maintain a constant supply of salt, the issuer would need to maintain the account balance that was used to create it in the first place.
That just sounds awfully complicated, and I don’t see any value in the conversion exercise. If the Euro is pegged to the USD at the rate 1 Euro = 2 USD then, regardless of what the price of the USD is dependent on, we are really just using USD with different colored bills. Right?
What market conditions? Whom does the Issuer of the salt pay to create his salt? Who in their right mind would pay this Issuer 10x the price, if he is free to acquire the stuff the same way the Issuer did?
Gambling casinos have always used plastic tokens pegged to a real currency. I’m not sure exactly why, but I guess it’s just easier to handle bits of plastic than crumpled up bills on a gambling table. But this is not an issue in a digital world.
In Finland even the banks are now giving their customers digital “bonus coupons” instead of Euros as a form of reward or incentive for using their services. This bonus can then only be used to pay for other services the same bank offers. I don’t understand what this is good for, but I’m guessing it has something to do with the banks playing the taxing system. Or maybe it’s just to confuse the customer and making him think he is getting something when he actually isn’t.
See also Amazon vouchers, book tokens etc. A lot of it is branding, it can also be about giving a gift in lieu of the item itself which is seen as more personal than just giving cash.
I personally don’t either, the logic for me is simple: cash is more flexible thus better. However, I have learned through many years that many of my loved ones appreciate the thought more than the sweat to acquire the currency. An e.g. amazon gift card, paired with a ‘what I thought they could buy with it’ and a little left over seems to bring more joy than cash of 150% the same value. There are all sorts.
There sure are! I personally often find humans difficult to understand. (Go chickens!) Cryptokitties and all sorts of gift cards should, of course, be allowed to exist on Safe. To each his own. But when building a new SAFE economy from scratch, I think we should avoid pure emotions and just stick to math.