RFC 0061A - Safe Network Token Distribution (Dogmatic Edition)

[JimCollinson]

@neo

Basically this is the same as saying the approx 10.5% SNT will be exchanged with MAID on a 1:1 basis and approx 14.5% will go to initial royalties. Why not just say this as the initial royalties distribution.

Yes, this is exactly right. Whichever way you want to dress it up, it’s changing the allocated distribution %s, and should be clearly stated.

And there are other issues too:

@jlpell

Network Royalties Pool

…

Upon official launch of the Network, a portion of the Network Royalties pool will be set aside to meet obligations promised in the original Project Safe Whitepaper, and to correct for a technical error that occurred in 2014 during the creation of MaidSafeCoins. In particular, the obligations to be satisfied via Ad Hoc payments at Network genesis are:

…

3. A sum of 23,055,683 tokens will be set aside to correct the overmint error that occurred in 2014. These tokens will also be exchanged 1:1 with MaidSafeCoin or eMaid on a first come first serve basis.

This spells trouble from a distribution point of view. These tokens cannot be held in the Network Royalties Pool. They need to be distributed by the same airdrop method as the other MaidSafeCoin allocation, and thus would need to be included in the genesis distro. Which changes the %s accordingly, as mentioned above.

@jlpell

10% of Network Royalties will be set aside to support an Automated Direct Distribution system for Resource Supply Rewards and Network Royalties that is autonomously administered by the Network itself.

It’s not going to be possible for the Foundation to hold these 10% back, and then have the Network automatically distribute them as tokens will not be able to be held by the Network; and the method for getting funds into the Network for distribution will be through data payments.

So, you may as well have the Foundation utilise the funds as per the original proposal (and as per the spirit of the original paper) and have them readily circulating through the economy.

@jlpell

As literally interpreted in the original Project Safe Whitepaper,

There are other ways to “literally” interpret things in the original paper.

It’s strange, on the one hand you are sticking to bits of it like it’s an immutable religious text, and on the other, you are either ignoring or adapting it to suit your view of the intent of the paper and the overall project.

Just another example, you’ve left out that the…

… Foundation will: House the MaidSafe team in an HQ

Should the Foundation still do that? If we are going the dogmatic route, then sign me up for a corner office!

But that’s the thing, it’s not a religious text, and it’s been written in a way that is both vague, contradicts its self at points, and is overly rigid in places and leaves no room for changing circumstances, and also can be interpreted differently by different people. (Oh, wait, maybe it is a religious text! :laughing)

We’ve walked a line with RFC 0061. It’s in the spirit of the original paper, the spirit of the project, the commitments to stakeholders, takes into account the changes and developments of the past decade of the project, and aims to leave enough latitude to accommodate future changes and challenges too.

That last bit is important… because there is every possibility that we could end up in the same situation in a few years with how we write this one if we are overly dogmatic and don’t write things with the future in mind.