Safenetwork expandability concerns - Economical effects of redundancy mechanisms - farmers make 8 times less!

@foreverjoyful, the amount of incorrect understanding is getting frustrating but I’m enjoying the much-needed exposure and discussion of the safecoin algorithm. It hasn’t seen as much discussion as it should have, so thanks for the threads because the attention is worth it despite the incorrect information you’re constantly posting.

Incorrect. Farmers are only paid for performing GET requests of data for clients. They are not paid for performing PUT requests. Even though they need to do the PUT at some point to be able to do the GET, they only receive income from doing the GET. No new PUT does not stop farmers income. No new GET does stop farmers income. Please understand this.

I’d like to ping @Deadloch who is hopefully still working on a blog post of the economics of safecoin who may have something to add to this thread (and also the very long sustainability concerns thread). They’re full of incorrect assumptions and understanding, but I’d like to know how that blog post is going and whether these threads could benefit from any of the research you’ve done so far?