Technical and operational discussion of network design

[waveman352]

At what point was the token burning mechanism cancelled from the plans? I missed that.

[dirvine]

It’s not, that seems to be a mistake, currently I personally feel it’s the best approach, but not written in stone.

[waveman352]

David I will provide the stone if you need it, let me know😁

[T824601]

I’m OK if “miners” make 0.00004 maid a week, it will just mean it’s that much valuable .

[19eddyjohn75]

@dirvine

I personally feel it’s the best approach

The best approach indeed

STRIKE 3: USA's Day of Reckoning - Hidden Secrets Of Money Episode 7 - Mike Maloney

@Nigel

highly inflationary

@Antifragile

inflated too fast

I’m sorry but I don’t get the inflation argument. Isn’t new SAFE coming into circulation within the fixed money supply and only a positive feedback of content/services/users coming online? The universe is expanding, but the energy in that universe is not…

[Nigel]

@19eddyjohn75

The universe is expanding, but the energy in that universe is not…

So funny you say this! I watched a PBS SpaceTime last night about this curve the universe followed that may have been what ignited the massive inflation of the Big Bang. There were a ton of neat details but most interesting was that it was sustainable. So I thought to myself, maybe inflation or at least the right kind of or implementation of inflation is not all bad. It is truly about growth and I think that is an important factor.

If I absorbed some of that video right though, inflation slows down in high growth areas across the board but starts new inflation is empty or low growth areas.

A lot of it’s over my head but I like your line of thought so here’s the link. Maybe @oetyng would find it interesting as well.

What Happened Before the Big Bang?

[Nigel]

@Antifragile

As far as I remember, few months ago, there were a thread where I asked oetyng about his minting algorithm.

Just to touch on this, I believe I remember this too but I also believe that was just pre DBC and was a discussion around AT2’s ‘bank’ as opposed to how a DBC can be brought into existence with the ‘mint’. Many structural limitations were blocking different implementations with full AT2 I think. Could have been done I’d guess but things look more flexible now with DBC. I don’t think minting full supply from the get go stands though I may be wrong.

[oetyng]

@Antifragile

As far as I remember, few months ago, there were a thread where I asked oetyng about his minting algorithm. And the answer was that there is not burn on payment anymore, that coins are printed and start to burn when full capacity of section is achieved. So this means there is burn when market cap is fully dilluted at around 4 billion coins, and not on each payment. The the original idea as I remmeber it was that Put costs are burned on each payment (or moved to a network owned coin pool) and vaults get fresh coins based on free available storage does not apply anymore. I was told those payments are direct now. Original idea allowed changing of deflation/inflation cycles. The last information I have allows inflation up to max 4,294,967,296 coins. So, original idea means the expected average amount of coins in circulation would be way less than those 4.3 billions.

As @Nigel says, this was before DBCs.

There are currently similarities, and also differences.

Similarity: Paying is from a user directly to nodes. There is no paying to the network atm.

Difference: It’s not certain that there will (can) be any minting.

So, what the above two things are most obviously about, is that
a) network does not own or hold any tokens, and
b) the network cannot create tokens

About minting, there’s a bit more to it; it might not be possible depending on how far the blinding of DBCs will go. It’s too early to say for certain, just mentioning it.

But, in case it would not be possible to mint new tokens, then we’d have to start with the full supply from start. That also means zero dilution.

[oetyng]

@Antifragile

how it can start with full supply? you mean 4 billions? who will own those remaining 85%?

All SNT in existence would be owned by the MAID owners. For the 4+bn supply, that means 1 MAID ~= 9.49054… SNT.
But this is not something decided, just mentioning the possibility.

@Antifragile

This has serious consequences on economy. Who will pay those miners if there is a price supression and sudden drop in usage? There for sure will be long periods of time, when new uploads can’t cover maintanance costs for existing data.

This can be debated. It’s good to get the discussions going.

(Edit: fixing the deeds of the Type Gnome)

[Nigel]

@oetyng

For the 4+bn supply, that means 1 MAID ~= 6.7 SNT.

I know outsiders might scoff at this but, I like it. MAID hodlers are one of a kind and have some of the strongest support and conviction and it really would be special for them to get that recognition. Granted the market still decides price so maybe we see a price drop or the MAID price at the time is simply divided by 6.7 so maybe not a huge benefit but we would see.

[oetyng]

@Nigel

Granted the market still decides price so maybe we see a price drop or the MAID price at the time is simply divided by 6.7 so maybe not a huge benefit but we would see.

Yeah, this is part is interesting. Does market expect 4.3 bn supply, and see it is now only 15 % of that? Or is the market expecting the current 15 % to be the total supply?
Hard to know, but I guess I think it’s more probable to be the latter, given that the market maybe isn’t that well informed of the network details (?).

@Nigel

MAID hodlers are one of a kind and have some of the strongest support and conviction and it really would be special for them to get that recognition.

Btw, I agree with this.

[T824601]

If there is scarce supply and demand for maid, price will just increase until there is no more rarity.

Don’t see a problem if the market provides ample coins once price matches expected value and provide liquidity.

The problem is not liquidity, it’s lack of a proper price incentive and investor willing to push the price up to get the coins they want.

[oetyng]

@Antifragile

I like the idea, that MAID = 6.7 SNT, as does any MAID holder. The problem I see is lack of trust from outside world who will not like 100% ICO premine.

About that.

Letting current full supply of MAID translate into the full supply of SNT, is not the same as 100% premined.
The term “premine” is actually not very suitable here.

So, to start with, “mining” for us, is simply staying online and providing resources - no other “mining” exists - and there will be no end to that “mining”. For that reason, there can be no 100%… or any %.
So, “premine” is not a term that applies to SAFE Network the way it does to e.g. block chains with limited caps.

Another one is that “premine” usually refers to ownership of the tokens at the project members (founders, developers, other staff etc). In our case, it would be out in the wild among anyone who so far came across it and held on to it.

I think the “100% premined”, or even “premined” is a red herring here… as long as we stay with MAID converting to SNT (via any other form), and no magical appearance of SNT at launch.

[oetyng]

@Antifragile

The other, much bigger problem is we realy need a pool of coins to be used for times, when there are not enough coins paid via puts. If there is not an option to mint and destory, than we likely need network owend pool. Such pool of coins could be used to pay vault owners when there is lack of PUT costs, and also if there is enough of people willing to pay for Puts, part of their spendings can go directly to that pool. So in good times, pool will get bigger and in bad times it will shrink.

@Antifragile

Who will pay those miners if there is a price supression and sudden drop in usage? There for sure will be long periods of time, when new uploads can’t cover maintanance costs for existing data.

So, I’m actually wondering how we can be so sure that there .. will be long periods of time, when new uploads can’t cover maintanance costs for existing data.

---

But that aside, we are already working with withholding the payment to nodes until they are relocated. If we can do that, we can also withhold it for other purposes…

Such as the pool you’re talking of.

When there’s good profitability, a part could be siphoned off to the pool. When there is low profitability, it could be balanced by the pool by releasing some of it to the owners.

This can’t exactly get new nodes to join, since the held DBCs are already owned by existing nodes.

But… the same effect could be achieved by letting the distribution algo of the reward shift correspondingly, to shift it towards younger nodes instead of older nodes.
Older nodes get their held back DBCs, younger nodes get more of the remaining payment flows.

Something like that. The problem is, like it has always been with all variants so far, to determine the “profitability”…

---

So, I’m just saying, I think it could still be achieved.
But, as I also said I’m not sure there is a need for it.

[Dimitar]

@oetyng

But, as I also said I’m not sure there is a need for it.

At the very least, there will be attacks from Safe copies that will trick people into transferring to them, leading to a spiral of death. It is a very bad idea for the network to have no fat to rely on in bad times.

---

Privacy. Security. Freedom

[oetyng]

@Antifragile

I think there should be prefered filled to free space ratio, and if there is too much free space, cut rewards, too litle, increase them. Similar is with puts. If there is too much free space, lower puts price. If there is too little free space, increase price put price.

This is already there.

[Nigel]

@oetyng

This is already there.

The former, latter, or both? I’m specifically curious if the network will disincentivize storage via higher storage cost at times when there isn’t enough space. Do you personally feel that incentives or disincentives to farmers is not quite enough? Thanks

[oetyng]

@Nigel

The former, latter, or both? I’m specifically curious if the network will disincentivize storage via storage cost. Thanks

All of it.

[dirvine]

@Antifragile

As far as I remember, few months ago, there were a thread where I asked oetyng about his minting algorithm.

I have given bad info then as I thought you were talking of MAID->SNT conversion, sry about that.

[tobbetj]

@oetyng

Yeah, this is part is interesting. Does market expect 4.3 bn supply, and see it is now only 15 % of that?

Look at File-coin. It started with about 0\very low supply and have very high inflation. Market might not be rational or it is ok with the above $130 billion total supply valuation. It seems strange that the price don’t fluctuate more downwards with such high inflation, it is like the market is not rational and don’t care, or something.

If market is rational and Safe launches with full supply then SNT should be above $30-50\coin and top 3 world market cap as it then should be above $130 billion market cap. Could maybe happen but I have no clue as I don’t understand if the market only cares about current supply, max supply or just thinks x amount of dollar seems like a fair price to pay for a coin. Markets should be rational, current and max supply should mean something but do they?

Understanding Filecoin Circulating Supply