well selling is always good for the network = availability for anyone to upload data = more data = etc
This idea makes the use of the network more difficult. Farmers will sell instead of holding - paying a transaction fee most likely to boot and theyâll end up holding another coin that doesnât have this fee. So in the bigger picture, it changes nothing and simply devalues the utility of the network - in favor of another one.
And when someone forks SN to create a version that doesnât have this fee, then what? I promise, it wonât take long for that to happen.
4 Likes
ok so I can be clear, thats what I am trying to convey:
- we would not have the 95% of bitcoins owned by 2% of hodlers situation
- put price is and will be low so people upload data which is the reason the network grows
Point one: I donât know why this is bad.
Point two: The put price must be roughly the cost to farmers or they wonât provide utility. This will be true no matter what as competition between farmers will keep price near cost. I donât see this has any effect on prices - it does cost large holders and keeps them from storing wealth in the network ⌠so value of token itself will remain low ⌠but that means tokens/put will be higher - to cover cost to farmers.
4 Likes
big successâŚ
1 Like
Weâve discussed something like this before on the forum. Conclusion: horrible idea/concept that is antithetical to network principles.
I donât understand the thought process in this statement. Why would PUT price be cheaper? If anything, it would be higher, because you would have less farmers willing to farm for resources they then get taxed for, driving storage costs up. If SNT is $1 but it takes 1000 SNTs to PUT a TB of data, thatâs objectively worse than SNT being $100, but it takes 9 to PUT a TB.
5 Likes
@SmoothOperatorGR on my admittedly quick skim of this topic, it seems to me that youâve missed one fundamental concept in that SNT price (e.g. USD/SNT) and put price (PUT/SNT) are decoupled.
There is no put price issue with SNT steadily rising, because it will incentivize farmers (as easy as running a script now) to add capacity, meaning that the network will adjust the PUT/SNT price (network is USD agnostic) lower⌠e.g. more puts per SNT.
This is IMHO one key to a good economy⌠bitcoin doesnât get cheaper to use as it rises, quite the contrary. But SNT rising means that the network itself will become cheaper in SNT terms to use.
So it is deflationary, not in USD terms, but in service provided terms ⌠this is a radically different economic policy backed by network usefulness, rather than pure speculation. And the rising price will not affect the affordability of the network⌠seperating speculators and users nicely.
7 Likes
So, you mean like the American dollar? 
Seriously, bought into this to make money, not to get poor, so hard NO!
3 Likes
But whoâs going to be willing to store that data for nothing?
And the space available to the network is linked to the storage cost. HDDs arenât free.
This isnât even possible with DBCs. All tokes are created upfront (so it canât recreate new tokens) and the network canât see the balances (so no way to add a tax if you donât know the balances).
2 Likes
I donât understand the whole negative interest rate proposal, but I would certainly be willing to share my drive even gratis, if that meant I could help keep e.g. journalists like Assange out of prison.
Thatâs called theft!
Negative interest rates are a sign of manipulated failing economies. They are the bankers/governmentâs answer to stimulate an otherwise unhealthy economy that they donât want to allow to correct. And yes, for sure, I would put the US in the same boat as other countries in this regard. Any interest rate below that of inflation is theft/tax. The last thing I think we want is negative rates. Or for that matter any taxes or coin manipulations. We want people to hold SNT, make investments for the future, and use the network how they want. There is nothing inherently wrong with mild deflation. In fact, the biggest con the banking industry has pulled on the world is that some inflation is somehow good. With sound money there is a natural, slight deflation as productivity advancements reduce the cost of things. Bitcoin sees such wild swings because it doesnât âdoâ anything and âisnâtâ anything. The safe network will do so much more and over time the value of the data stored on it should even out the swings. The fact that only a small amount of coins have been released so far goes a long way towards keeping supplies open. Iâm not sure even thatâs necessary, though, as the network pricing structure is self-regulating. It has two moving parts and not just one like all other (or perhaps nearly all other) crypto and like all fiat currencies. There is the fiat value of the token AND there is the network upload cost in token amount. Psychologically, it will be a huge negative if we tax holders. A significant number of people will likely see this as manipulation and theft and stay away. I donât think we want to emulate big government/banking policy. We want to attract those seeking to get away from that.
9 Likes
Negative interest rates are an abomination, as you wrote.
Interest less than inflation doesnât necessarily have to be theft⌠it can simply be a signal that the economy is making tickets faster than it is baking pies. I admit though that if this is a deliberate choice, it resolves in an awful hurry down to theft from those with tickets.
The default for any functional economy must be a positive interest rate, if for no other reason than that you may die tomorrow. Money now is and must always be worth more than money in the future⌠to people.
The only things that can tolerate the opposite are immortal entities with completely rational time preferences or parasitic advantages. E.g. large corporations, especially those dipping into the financial arteries.
1 Like
You are quite right. Interest rates can just be a reaction to market dynamics. I should have been clear that I was referring to the interest rates set by central banks.