As in the title. Discuss.
Don’t think it’s a simple as that. The whole idea behind more coins is to allow the network to run more efficiently when at critical mass. Which could be many years into an established network. I think…
4 Likes
It is also not what was agreed at the outset.
Some things need to be changed if there is a good reason to. ( The network requires it to function better).
Why do you think there is anything detrimental to the the network with the current plan?
As they say. If its not broken, dont try and fix it.
4 Likes
Lol this topic is funny. Really gonna post a controversial idea with no reasoning behind it at all? Just trying to understand the thought process here
3 Likes
You would destroy one of the most important abilities of the autonomous network to attract more or dissuade farmers.
Also what would you pay early farmers with. The few coins initially used to store data?
Nah the network would collapse before it got off the ground, farmers not being paid except for the few lucky ones.
7 Likes
Surely when the network goes live there will be a huge number of people putting up their apps & web sites, and this will be in proportion to the amount of data put onto the network?
If the network balances supply & demand as expected (farming rewards and put cost), I don’t think it should require any dilution, but my guess is the purpose of the dilution is to spread ownership & incentivise participation over holding.
Yes. So 10000 people spend a coin and the 10000 coins are destroyed
Then we have say 20000 vaults (1) and with the scarcity factor (3) only 1 in 430 farming attempts produce a coin.
Then the farming rate is very low (2) because of all the space provided at the start and takes time for uploads to fill. This means that its very cheap to upload and some time between farming attempts.
So yes, just a few coins in the early stages would be created in this scenario
(1)
1000 say from Maidsafe
10000 from all the people following SAFE by the time of the launch
9000 from people running 2 to 100s of vaults
(2)
tons of spare space means farming rate is low
This results in few farming attempts
This means that uploads buys a lot of space so the initial coin is likely to last the person for weeks during he initial running of the network.
(3)
scarcity factor is when a farming attempt occurs the coin address generated for the attempt is checked to see if the coin exists or not.
So 10000 coins existing out of 4,300,000 coins is 1 in 430 coin creation attempts will succeed.
So if farming rate is 1 in a million (or lower) then only 1 in 430,000,000 GETs will result in a coin creation.
1 Like
Unless farming is marketed is such a way that its side income for other coins mining. Meaning instead of mining btc, they can allocate some redundant resources to farm safecoins at the same time. Thus horde of miners will join the bandwagon because, why not? Nothing to lose anyways.
If I’m a home miner, I’d do that.
The whole point of only having 10% of coins initially was very important for the operation of the incentive model for SAFE. To issue all the coins at once would require a completely new system to reward farmers and change the dynamics of the home farmer. Just like @Wong’s post illustrates
No longer can the home farmer expect to receive coins from using their spare resources. They need huge farms to get a large number of GETs so they can expect to get any coins at all.
The buffer for times when uploads are low is gone.
The ability to increase farming rate to attract farmers is gone. The increase reward rate would quickly deplete any coins addresses available for coin creation. So as the network fills up then farmers end up getting nothing and buying resource costs increase so less coins being returned to the network since people won’t pay that much. The network would basically just die.
The network has be mature and decades old before we can have most coins issued. Because then the coin will be worth $$$ wise a lot more and the reduced coin creation rate for the same rate is acceptable. And the coins being used to store data will be good value since the actual farming rate is low with so many vaults and good supply of storage.
To issue all the coins initially is to try and emulate a ancient network with only a baby one.
4 Likes
Exactly. If safenet works as describe billions of coins wouldn’t be enough. So no worries about scarcity. Instead of capping the coins the focus should be increasing the usefulness/utility. Take fiat currencies for example, there’s no indication when government will stop printing or counterfeiting ceasing. They’re a much sought after items aren’t they? 
If safenet works as described then it has to be capped at 4 billion coins and only 10% exist on day 1
It is part of the description and the operations of rewards and control of resources is dependent on that.
I’m referring to the times of mass adoption & huge numbers of farmers.
This reminds me of university essay exam.
1 Like
Safecoin is designed not as a money making device, but as a way to balance the network and provide incentives to motivate people to provide resources or as a disincentive to provide resources depending on network storage space.
To just open it up as you suggest then it sounds like the other cryptos where the coins are there to make people money. The network owns the coins and uses them for its own advantage. There have never been anything like it. The total number of coins issued over the decades is likely to be 100’s of billions with only a max of 4 billion available to exists at any one time. Have you read about the recycling?
I think u got me wrong here. I’m voting for things to stay status quo.
1 Like
My bad.
That info might be useful to someone else (hopefully)
1 Like
No worries. We all want the project to succeed.
1 Like
Surely the answer to having tons of storage space compared to demand for downloads is not incentivise farmers to provide even more resources to the network?
This scenario you’ve put forward seems fine - any initial glut of available space should result in low upload costs to incentivise people to upload, play, and share their work with others, and farming rewards should be low, as there’s greater supply of resource than demand.
In turn, this low upload / put price should attract more data / content and then generate more demand for downloads / gets. As this happens, demand will increase to move toward a healthy utilisation of resources, and a market will emerge that the network can balance.
Why could a market not quickly develop on a small network, or, why would farmers need to be incentivised beyond the payment they’ll receive from those who pay for put credit?
Is your example saying that the proposed design for farming isn’t able to balance resources while the network is small, as it can’t make payouts at a sufficient rate to incentivise farmers even if demand begins to outstrip available supply?
In this case, won’t the network put the farming rate up to the required rate to incentivise farmers once further resource provision is required?
I just wanted to expand upon @neo’s comments.
A good perspective with which to view the current design, and see the genius of it, is that all 4.3 billion coins do exist and are owned at launch. It’s just that only a fraction (~10%) are owned by or owed to humans, the rest is owned by the network. Your proposal would therefore require us to steal from the network. Not good.
From the human perspective:
- sell local hardware/software resources to the network for safecoin.
- buy PUTs (with safecoin) from the network to access global hardware/software resources.
From the network perspective:
- buy local hardware/software resources from humans with safecoin.
- sell PUTs (for safecoin) to humans to let them access global hardware/software resources.
For this reason the OP proposal is both detrimental and illogical (no offense).
3 Likes
Guys you did exactly what he wanted! He’s prolly choking on popcorn as he laughs right now! 
1 Like