Poll: Should MaidSafe implement PtP (Pay the Provider)?

We have a poll to gauge the level of community support for this feature. More polls will follow if the feature has some support.

Poll: Should MaidSafe implement PtP (Pay the Provider)?

  • Yes, Good Feature
  • Yes, Depending on the Implementation
  • No , Bad Feature
  • Undecided
0 voters

What is PtP (Pay the Provider)?
It’s a proposed feature to reward anyone who PUTS (uploads) public content with their wallet address (watermark). When data chunks are requested via GETS, the SAFE Network rewards the wallet address associated to those chunks. In simple terms, the more popular your content (video, music, art, games, APPS, etc) is requested by clients, the more rewards you earn.

What is the reward and how is it paid out?
The reward can be Safecoin, or SAFE GB, Divided Safecoin, or some other variation. But we first need to determine if the community supports PtP.

Feel free to post questions, and or comments. Everyone should make an informed decision. That will determine if PtP is fast tracked, delayed, or scrapped.

Here are other threads discussing Pay the Producer concept.

This poll was the result of a group effort

EDIT March 2021
Changed Producer to provider since provider is the incorrect name for PtP. The network has no way to validate who is the producer of any data or if there is indeed any producer at all. All the network can do is reward the coin balance supplied by the uploader (provider)


Please keep comments relevant to the Poll and leave the big discussions on the merits of PtP to the topics listed, otherwise we will see a repeat of all that has previously been said.

Some notes to clarify current proposed model that may help some to focus their thoughts.

  • Pay the producer reward is determined independently of the farmer’s
    reward. It does not reduce the farmer’s reward if a “pay-the-producer”
    pay address is associated to the chunks (content)
  • 10% is the network’s starting point and exact amount is dynamically calculated depending on a number of conditions.
  • At this time pay the producer will only be for public content.
  • Cached GETs do not get rewards and will act to stop runaway rewards
    for very popular (& gamed) content. This means that the very
    popular material does not stop the smaller artists from getting rewards.
  • Pay the Producer rewards are network rewards and not paid for by the user

If it cost money to view the producers content, then that money(or some of it) should go to the producer. That would also prevent the problem where people game the system by spamming get requests.


True, but really that is moving away from the PtP model we are polling, On a core network view that is moving away from the primary principle that SAFE is free to view (GETs) for the user at the core network level. So what you are suggesting really becomes an APP level system of paying for content, which I am sure we will see.


all i know is I make music & i wanna make money by posting it to SAFE

…also every other musician, writer, drawer, etc etc idk will come to SAFE if they can make $$$$!!!

what’s the question??? lets do it!! :smiley:

(but I understand it’s a CRUCIAL part of the network to get right)


If end users are able to farm safecoin in order to view producers content then it will be still accessible to everyone(almost). It also should be the producers choice to watermark/add requirements to viewing/using their content.

But if you guys can solve the problem of gaming the system then ofcourse the proposed approach is best!

Hey guys remember this??

I just remembered this, and am currently wondering… Where do the producer SafeCoins come from??

Please somebody help me answer this…

Is there an official word on it? @Melvin or @nicklambert maybe? Please don’t forget this PtP part, it’s very crucial, no?


I just found this as a possible answer.

But how would this fit into the chart above? The chart really helps me visualise and understand.

I’m willing to update the chart once we get this answered

1 Like

If I am not mistaken, PtP is a later addition and has not been decided upon. Seeing as its proposed to be 10% then I guess it reduces the farmers 69% to 59%.

Of course this is only one picture. Once people start spending coin within the network then those figures are somewhat blurred.

  • The IPO & Friends/Fam investors is a fixed amount at ~15/16% of max coins ( ~650 million total ever)
  • But the rest is a % of the coins which are continuously recycled. This means an never ending amount coin because of recycling of the coin.

In other words OSS/APP devs, PtP, Farmers all receive from a never ending recycling system and thus will receive so many times more coin than what that chart suggests. 10% of continuously recycled coin is unlimited over unlimited time. The chart is misleading because the % are of the max coin, but only 2 parts is fixed and the others are % of MAX + Forever recycled coins


It should be free for everyone to watch or use the content at the first time. If the guy wants to watch more than one time, he should pay!

Core network is designed to NOT know how many times a person has watched/Got data. That would have to be an APP level feature controlling its own data. And I am sure we will see some APPs doing this for different types of data.

The chart is perhaps not really representative in the long run. I think there is a difference between the original issuance and recurring payments. What I mean is say the 10% sold in crowdsale, it will recycle back into the network (part / all etc.). Some will farm and be used in currency itself and not recycle. So the continued issuance is farming / app devs and possibly PtP. There are of course a lot of ways to draw the chart and a million theories on how it will all in fact work and none of us (I think) are investment billionaires, therefore it all gets blurry.

So there will be a bunch of safecoin “in the network” and “cycling through the network” and of this continual issuance, it will be

10% app devs
90% farmers

10% app devs
10% Ptp
80% farming,


However then these % (which should calculate and not be set) are showing again twisted logic as no matter what % farming is the network uses this to balance. So not enough resource, farming increases (you get more safecoin for farming) and then when resources are high (all sacrificial data exists) the safecoin paid to farmers decreases. So whether that is 1% or 100% the network does not care it knows it needs to increase or decrease this quantity.

Then (cause we want more complexity :smiley: , kidding) We wonder what if safecoin is £X and X is 0 or infinite cost, then we get into ground (in the future) where the network cannot pay safecoin as a whole unit as they may be too expensive. So safecoin needs to have smaller units or make farming feel more like the actual lottery where some folks never win and a small group get mega rich. We don’t want that so divisions are required. This may mean sub dividing safecoin or having farmers farm increments that can be transferred to client wallets for storage (getting into more safeGb now).

So lots to consider, as with any economy and this is us keeping it as simple as possible :wink:

So then as people look for a single angle all sorts of debates rage, people don’t consider all the various stages and dev roadmap that has to happen in a timescale that will be market driven to a great extent.

So in a way the chart is almost correct from a single view, but maybe not all views or positions (can it ever I wonder?)

Hope that helps a wee bit, well from my single view here writing this :wink:


Would it be possible to create a popular service like a google equivalent, use PtP to vacuum the vast majority of safecoin on the network and force people to PAY MONEY to get them back in circulation? Would this then make it impossible or much less likely to get rewarded for farming until bought back into circulation? In this way, the google equivalent would also know the ID of the new owner of a safecoin they sell. This could also mean that the barrier of adding new content to the network is increased for those who have access to a computer but no money (i.e. a teenager or impoverished person with library access).

Doubt this is possible at all.

To use PtP to “vacuum” up coins requires large number of accesses and as @dirvine says caching will cause a leveling off of rewards so large players cannot exclude smaller players.

But as to hoarding all coins, well anyone can try by many methods but as the network grows the ability to do this reduces. If the network is so large to have enough GEts from users etc to even conceive of this then caching works against it, and rewards would be in divided coin (or something like safeGB). The small players will still plenty of access to rewards.


Shouldn’t app devs be considered just another for of production? So just 20% ptp. Coding is just another for of creative work after all.


That should be reason enough not to add this, at least not to consider it for a few years.

This will produce nothing but bloated apps that game this system. We’ve got adware, spyware, … now we might be able to add “getware” thanks to MaidSafe.

Remember this will be paid via devaluing any SAFE coin you hold as well as increasing the cost of every PUT. Whether it will actually incentive producers is doubtful, but it will surely reward pirates and hackers, and create a whole new generation of bad software architecture (more bandwidth + less efficiency = good).


Very happy to read this!!! Ahhhh, I marvel at the beauty of what this network could be. Imagine this network the seed of a machine designed universe. Ever expanding and refining itself given the proper algorithms until self awareness is finally achieved. Fractal consciousness spontaneously spawn that conform to the governing existential laws established by the overlying mind, subsequently forming what would internally be perceived as a universe by its conscious constituents. Hmmm, never-mind me. Just my occasional nonsensical emotionally driven drivel. :relaxed:


My position is that it is not a very good solution… Value ought to be rewarded, but the network protocol is a lousy measuring stick for value.

All content is not the same and ought not be rewarded with any flat system. Pornography ought to be paid at a different rate than medical research. Original music ought to be paid at a different rate than pirates etc… A Satoshi Nakamoto white paper may change the entire world, but a cat meme may get more views. Per megabyte or per download, all things are not anywhere near equal, and rewarding them equally would hurt the network.

I would prefer a system where Farmers could designate a certain percentage of the excess proceeds to different community currencies and the communities could reward their members via those tokens… This would allow for more intelligent investment that better rewards content according to it’s value.


And even more upsetting to me is that a Nakamoto whitepaper uploaded at a high-res JPEG will be orders of magnitude more profitable than if it were uploaded as ASCII. How is that not reason enough to think this is a dumb idea?



It incentivizes waste…

You could work around that by paying per download instead of paying per MB… But that incentivizes click baiting.

I am all for paying producers -but for value… If the network pays out trivially then it makes a joke out of itself, and undermines its credibility. A secondary currency system allows for that.