Thanks for taking time to do that.
I am wondering whether it’d be useful to create a list of all “workers” in the chain.
Farmers are already covered. I’d like to consider (let’s say for v3.0) additional categories as well:
- Network providers (“wagoners”?) - wagoners could be rewarded for their daily net throughput (when positive). Obviously there are many elements that could be measured, but for the sake of brevity I won’t go in to that. Users would pay for network throughput and maybe even farmers should pay (50/50?).
- Cache providers - I haven’t been able to find a clarification whether cache is stored only in RAM or also on disk, but in either case it should be paid for. Caching nodes could charge the user based on the number of cache hits, or this could be abstracted and they could simply charge the same way “wagoners” do (maybe a fraction of GET price, or maybe even the same price as GET price)
Does "recycled’ in GET means that unlike in PUT, where it’s “burned” (and farmers who become hosts for the initial chunk can’t get those Safecoins), in GET 's the coins actually end up in their wallets?
I wonder how that will play out. If you don’t recover your backups often, you’ll probably issue few GETs to others, but if most other users are like you, you’ll also serve very few GETs. Because you stand a 25% chance to receive any such request and a 100% chance to pay for every such request, wouldn’t you need to do 4x much “work” to balance your own account?
Also, if you have 100GB to backup (on the SAFE network) and 100GB to share, you’d get 0 for PUTs (if those Safecoins are burned) and pay 4X as much for your own PUTs to other nodes on the network.
Maybe I’m missing something but it seems you’ll need to do “more” work to pay nothing (since you actually consume 400% more storage than you give, that’s to be expected).
That could be tricky, but it’s too early to think how exactly. Among other things the exchange rate will depend on how much storage will be available the moment we enter production and so on.