Safecoin divisibility / SafeNetwork potential market cap

Autonomi Network Token (incl (e)MAID)
1

I think we have to consider the best case scenario to see how the prices might impact the storage inner economy.
The total number of transactions in cash worldwide is considered to be about 34 trillion dollars (that’s 34 million million), and the most optimistic predictions of the IoT economy is 60 trillion USD in the next 15 years (estimation by General Electric).

So lets say that in the most optimist scenario possible, SafeNetwork becomes the standard of IoT + SafeCoin ends up replacing cash worldwide. That would potentially make the Marketcap of SafeNetwork be worth 94 trillion dollars.
That would make each Safecoin be worth $21886.08 USD.

We need Safecoins to be at least divisible up to 6 decimals.
IF we get to this point, the sky is the limit, don’t know how much more it may grow, if proven to be ironclad reliable and fast, other electronic markets and exchanges might rely on the network, or unimaginable new ways of taking advantage of the network.

So to avoid being caught in surprise, the divisibility problem should be tackled with this in mind.
6 decimals is quite reasonable, 7 decimals sounds quite a stretch, and 8 decimals sounds like extreme.
But when IPv4 was designed, it was never anticipated that all the IP addresses would be exhausted, and nobody expected to PCs and laptops would become popular, and nobody even imagined in their wettest dreams that cameras, smartphones and appliances would even exist and that every single device could be connected to the net.

The point is that I think that if we think about the success of the network, we can’t limit ourselves to the existing global markets today, that would be like thinking in the 60’s that 2^32 addresses are fine because current global surveys on mainframes say it is fine.

Exponential growth can be extremely surprising and unexpected, and easy to scoff at.
This is another estimate on ipv6 address exhaustion model, which repeated the same story:
https://samsclass.info/ipv6/exhaustion.htm
Who initially made the website mockingly in 2013, basically saying that its address space 2^128 is now MORE than enough, predicting exhaustion in 5 trillion trillion trillion trillion years.
Now we don’t have to worry about address space ever! right?

In 2016 he ended up updating the model based on the latest events:
https://samsclass.info/ipv6/exhaustion-2016.htm
In which he had to correct the prediction to 9 million years, a reduction of 24 orders of magnitude in only 3 years.

Food for thought.

8 Likes
2

I love it when people dream even bigger than me :wink:

I think the divisibility has to be even larger.
If every guy who farms with his own pc is to be rewarded with a fraction of a safecoin, he should be given 1 e-10 coin.
High divisibility can increase total market cap since these small fractions maybe worth a few buck of storage.
It will also be a big + for early investors to avoid diluting their stake, while everyone gets to participate in farming.

5 Likes
3

There’s a mixing up here of cash flows and capital, so the numbers for transactions can’t just be converted to market capitalisation. Example one SafeCoin changing hands 100 times is 100 SafeCoin of transactions, but one SafeCoin in capital.

So I think your 34 trillion figure doesn’t contribute $34 trillion to the market cap, though possibly not by enough to worry about for this kind of calculation. Just worth noting.

3 Likes
4

okay, then existing cash in circulation is about 3 trillion dollars + IoT 63 trillion total (there are other sources of demand but not including, as it is dwarfed with these numbers, throwing in a trillion more or less doesn’t really affect it).
So in any case, the message doesn’t change, it is still minimum to be able to price storage would require at least 6 decimals.

2 Likes
5

Good thing my proposal allows up to 18 decimal places. The UI/network can limit user transactions to what the network size handles (eg early on its 2 decimal places and grows with updates or dynamic increasing) and allows payment of rewards at the current rate, even if 1/10^17 of a coin. The APP UIs can display the amount however the user wants (preference stored in wallet data structure)

Oh and it only requires one to 3 transactions to perform a send of small amounts, however small. One if no coin needs to be frozen which is the norm.

11 Likes
6

Is that proposal formalized in a RFC?

7

No it was a proposal for getting discussions and/or faults pointed out.

It is now on the back burner and has been noted by the devs to be investigated at the right time.

3 Likes
8

could you link it here? I tried looking for it last time, and couldn’t find it.

2 Likes
9

I was just looking it up and was going to edit my post above, but now I will have to have this new post for the link :slight_smile:

And the associated one for the wallet structure

9 Likes
10

If you read the proposals on this forum for divisible Safecoin you’ll see that the idea is to “lock” or “freeze” a Safecoin and make it a value in some sort of index. That index can have whatever number of bytes as you want. So 12 digits, or 120 digits should be no problem, just depends on what the devs choose. @Seneca already posted an idea for divisible alt-coins:

The sky is the limit here.

6 Likes
11

lol we should be happy with 50 bn market cap ever :joy:

12

I think any early investor will be happy about a 50bn market cap, we will probably all have sold out before then :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:, but it’s not about us, it’s about the network’s divisibility requirements in the context of an IoT future (with frequent nano txs) and most extreme scenarios where SAFE has worked as planned and become what it could be. The network does need to be responsible and plan for success.

Like neo and pol said though, his and other suggestions do solve the issue in an unlimited way. It can probably be as divisible as we need it to be at any point in time.

3 Likes
13

I thought I saw a proposal for safecoin divisibility that offered infinite splitting of safecoins and portions of safecoin into two pieces (four, eight, sixteen…). Does anyone have that link?

14

Why does safecoin divisibility require anything more than increasing the number of safecoins in circulation? Take a look at IOTA for example. This is another “coin” that is indivisible. The divisibility problem was solved by making plenty available and dealing in “MegaIOTA” to start. It is simple and it works. Considering that the coin is indivisible, I don’t see why we wouldn’t circulate as much of it as possible in order to make the divisibility problem disappear. If you insist on giving 1 safecoin to 1 maidsafecoin, then instead make the smallest unit a millisafecoin and give 1000 millisafecoins for every maidsafecoin when the network launches. Or better yet, do it like IOTA and issue 1 million of whatever unit the network will use for every maidsafecoin in existence and make the network cap 5.3 quadrillion of these coins. Why not? Problem solved.

15

I should add that I think this issue is definitely an important one. Even if safecoin is used in the future exclusively for buying storage space and has no other purpose on the network, it is going to make it difficult for anyone to purchase storage if they have to spend a minimum of $1000 to get one coin in order to get started. Yes, we could always fix this in the future by issuing a new coin, where one safecoin is worth 1000 of the new coin, but why not just do this to start in order to avoid complications? What is the reasoning for NOT issuing a higher quantity of coins from the get go? This will make it so the current coin in circulation (safecoin) will be more flexible and potentially be able to last longer without any intervention.

16

In IOTA you have addresses with a balance of IOTAS. In Safe each safecoin is a mutable data so your idea generate an enormous amount of information that the network, especially in the beginning, cannot manage.

And, of course, the safecoin division is an important feature, but yet exist several possible solution. And, I’m sure, the devs have some other possible solution in mind. When the time comes, the different possible solutions will be analyzed.

1 Like
17

“In Safe each safecoin is a mutable data”

I understood this before making this proposal. The question is “how much data”. Why do you assume the amount of data will be “enormous” and that the network “cannot manage”?

I actually expect there to be a flood of extra storage space when the network launches. I’m sure there is a lot of extra storage space sitting in people’s home’s that nobody uses and it is almost no cost for people to make it available to other’s if it can be done in a secure manner. The safe network will allow the world to share all this extraneous storage space to make efficient use out of it. Many people would likely do it even if they earn nothing, just to support the network, just as people have done on many past P2P file sharing networks.

If a large amount of storage comes on the network right away, then it will cost very little safecoin to use - which means the price of safecoin is going to sky rocket… but if we limit the divisibility it will ony serve to hamper adoption. If there is a more resource friendly way to implement divisibility that is secure and simple, then by all means… but increasing the coins is rather trivial. Where did the 5.3 billion figure come from anyway?

18

maybe 1 Kb per coin ? So 1 Terabyte gets us 1073741824 coins? There are 452,552,412 in circulation, so I assume we’d be starting with only those converted to safecoin. So if we convert 452,552,412 maidsafe to each 1000 safecoin, We need 452552412000/1073741824 = 421 Terabytes… hmmm

Edit: That does sound like a lot to use up just to hold coins…

1 Like
19

Simply because to do IoT there would be more coins than there is storage space available to store them. Even if there was the transaction load when people have to send all their collected pico-safecoins in payment for something.

Its is simply transaction and storage space requirements. It might be ok for 2^36 or even 2^40 coins, but after that its not practical especially in the shorter term. And then with 2^36 or 2^40 how would you get micro or pico-safecoins for IoT

Mind you the 1KB is probably the overhead needed when storing a MD and then the coin info is on top.

But as you say in your edit, it is a lot.

  • For micro-safecoin (10^-6) that figure is now 421 PB
  • For nano-safecoin (10^-9) that figure is now 421000 PB
  • For pico-safecoin (10^-12) that figure is now 421000000 PB
  • For what division using balance method (10^-18 of a safecoin) its 421000000000000 PB
6 Likes