@Deadloch Above is an older post explaining the difference between account creation vs activation. Pricing for PUT requests (storage), is still unknown. We talked about a Network Utilization model, which you already described above. Once we analyze TestNet3 performance, we can get numbers to answer your questions.
@Warren this was the POR Tokens, which is currently disabled. IMO, direct swap is not enforceable.
The OP triggered a concern because it relates to Safecoin economics. It’s early, but I won’t be able to sleep until I put it out there. This might be a bit long…
Large mining pools are leaving Bitcoin because the fiat price is too low to afford the cost of their operation. People are predictable when you understand their incentives.
The following is PURE speculation…
STAGE 1
SAFE Network Beta launch draws a huge influx of farmers, resulting in massive storage availability. Based on the Network Utilization Model, I predict Safecoin PUT costs will drop dramatically, until capacity fills up. Since there are only a handful of APPS, there won’t be enough demand to keep pace with growing storage capacity. Deduplication will also factor in and further cause the Safecoin PUT costs to drop.
STAGE 2
Due to the incredibly cheap cost of SAFE storage, for life, whale investors may seek to capitalize and buy up all the space then resell it. This means they would acquire Safecoin, resulting in the fiat price rise, buy up the storage space and wait. Because the Network Utilization Model only counts what is “used” a 20% increase in the Safecoin cost would trigger some to cash in.
Safecoin Example
(Assume the launch price is 1Gb = 1SC)
Network Price = 10Gb @ 12 Safecoins
Investor Sold = 10Gb @ 11 Safecoins
Investor Bought = 10Gb @ 10 Safecoins
It’s cheaper to buy from the investor than the Network.
Fiat Translation
(Assume 1SC = $0.05)
Network Price = 10Gb @ $0.60
Investor Sold = 10Gb @ $0.55
Investor Bought = 10Gb @ $0.50
The average Hard Drive is around $0.05 per GB, which is how I priced my example. Now this is where it gets interesting… Imagine if the fiat value of Safecoin also went up. This would lead to a compounding effect in profitability. Let’s say the value of Safecoin went from $0.05 to $0.10.
Fiat Continued
(Assume 1SC = $0.10 BUT the Investor bought storage when 1SC = $0.05)
Network Price = 10Gb @ $1.20
Investor Sold = 10Gb @ $1.10
Investor Bought = 10Gb @ $0.50
The investor doubled his fiat money on the fiat side, AND from the Safecoin side. It makes sense the fiat rises along with Safecoin because they are acquired for the same reason.
STAGE 3
With such a golden egg opportunity, there will be more farmers/investors coming in from mass adoption. I didn’t factor in killer APPS yet. But it points in the same direction. At this stage, we may get some serious consumer demand. The SAFE Network capacity starts to fill up with unique data. Which means, Safecoin PUT costs rise, until equilibrium is temporarily reached. So far everything is great! Consumers are happy, farmers are happy, investors are happy.
STAGE 4
Over the next 20 years, the SAFE Network reduces Safecoin payout. This means farmers, don’t get paid as much as they did before. If the fiat value of Safecoin drops below cost of operation, we will have the same mass exodus effect as Bitcoin. I hope this will not be the case, and the key factor is bandwith/energy costs.
If the farmer is faced with increasing cost of production with decreasing Safecoin payout, they will leave. This event may not happen for awhile. But it’s something that I think we should address in the future. My solution is to maintain the payout rate. As less coins are created, Safecoin PUT costs increase, taking over what the Network was subsidizing.
Won’t that mean PUT storage gets more expensive? Yes, that draws more farmers with even bigger storage and better bandwith. It should be self-sustaining. Or we can try the GET request model. Just food for thought.