Firstly I want to be clear that the team and @dirvine & @Bux have done a lot of hard work to come to a solution to a difficult situation with the token mechanics and I thank them for it.
Secondly from what I can see the code is now coming together nicely for being able to launch a viable network. And all the team should be congratulated for that.
Thirdly using ERC20 for the solution to paying node operators in the real work seems workable although it does change dynamics of the use of the network somewhat, I understand the difficult situation of getting things to work together for the most good.
Now my reservations and criticisms
without knowing how to actually do a transaction on the network makes it hard to determine to what extent these negatives will impact things
until the native token we have a situation where manual processing to pay for chunks (up to 256 at a time) will make uploading a chore and so difficult for those wishing to upload a lot of their files in a reasonable timeframe
This rules out then any widespread (past testing) use of things like email, messaging, forums, blogs, dropbox, photos/doc saving, uploading libraries with small files in it, and all other smaller files when there is more than a few. Static Web pages of a couple of chunks prob are fine, forget dynamic pages past testing them.
basically the ideal use case is for files of 256 chunks and only uploading a couple a day. Unless you have staff to handle all the manual executions of the smart contracts when uploading each and every file.
Until there is a explanation of how the payments are executed then one assumes that it is indeed a manual process executing a contract for each and every file/256-chunks
many of these means that the ordinary person can run nodes but not be able to use the network for the most part of what the fundamentals were for
some of us have no clue how to use ETH, L2, etc and that goes for general public. This is not going to be an easy task for those like us. I wonder if the ordinary public would be willing to ever jump that hurdle of learning to navigate how to get to L2. Native token when it arrives will be more like getting a crypto asset like btc, use fiat to buy token on an exchange. L2 is made confusing with all the different L2 operators/gas coins/etc
It would be wise for the acknowledgement that until the Native token is available these are the drawbacks. People can handle the news if it is given with both the positives, which are many, and the negatives. We all need to be aware of them.
This greatly understates things
And this is not true in my experience unless you talk of many many years. People I have known my whole life are anti-crypto and even with my encouragements they “know” crypto is bad
tl;dr All in all I congratulate the team, @dirvine , and @Bux for their efforts and solutions.
I also think it’d be good to include the short term (how long is a piece of string) shortcomings of the solution to a much more realistic amount than has been done.
Blockquote Is the eventual aim to eliminate the ERC20 token?
The aim is to provide the most accessible and usable network. We anticipate that the Native Token will be the more usable and likely more popular option in the future, but having them coexist would give the most flexibility, until the Native Token usage subsumes that of the ERC20.
How can 2 different tokens coexist?
If the entire emaid supply is converted to the ERC token, where do the Native tokens come from afterwards?
Are you going to double the money supply by creating inflation to give a native token to each erc token owner and let the market decide? Because I don’t see any other way to do it.
If the other option was, whoever wants, to exchange the ERC tokens for native tokens 1 to 1 and burn the ERC tokens, I don’t think anyone will change them, so the native token will be stillborn.
Let me explain, since there are two tokens they will be quoted at different prices, let’s imagine that the launch goes well, the network works, grows and the price of the erc token reaches a high valuation, who in their right mind is going to exchange that token for another one that nobody knows how it will perform in the market?
The logical thing would be to wait and see how it goes, and if the native token exceeds the price of the ERC token, then the 1 to 1 exchange would be carried out.
Therefore, if we all wait and no one exchanges it, I don’t see a future for it.
I’m sure I’m missing something… opinions?
Shouldn’t be an issue if uploading 100 MB costs say 0.5 ERC Token and costs same 0.5 Native Token. We have ETH/BTC bridged into L2s or other blockchains and everywhere it has almost identical prices even thought bridges themselves put them at risk.
What I’m only concerned about is that each separate node practically earns dust amount of tokens. And if they are ERC tokens it’s just a pain to scrape them into one wallet.
Maybe nodes will have an option to set a particular wallet to recieve earning in one place?
The nodes specify the wallet, so if the person wants they can have 20 nodes using the one erc20 wallet. This would ease the need for scraping. Of course they may not want to
Sad to see my favorite project shifting away from grassroots and ants…
Developing a node from home/phone where the earnings from running that node is THE base of the networks economy is still the way forward. No need to lipstick the pig.
As of today I can still not run a node from home with a simple setup.
To shift more than 10 percent of the projects resources away from this basic milestone seems wrong.
So sad to see Maidsafes resources going to developing expertice in running EVM L2:s, lawyers, CEX negotiations, pleasing regulators/3 letters organizations…
Thank you team for always doing the right thing to keep the project alive and moving forward. I have never been disappointed. I know this network will succeed.
Have you updated the nodes to the latest version which came out yesterday? Network gone from 60 to 110k nodes since latest updates, so many more are able to get their nodes running.
Do you think storage should not be priced in dollars? Pricing storage at a fixed amount of tokens will kill the network, it is a mistake for the network’s economy, it will impede its growth and make it less attractive for node operators, developers and investors.
This makes no sense. Any network has no outside scope of a dollar value, the network token floats with its own value in its own network. dollarising it is pervse. the dust issue on eth is exactly that, its the same problem.
the actual network token shouldnt have this issue.
That’s not what I understood. @Obelius was talking about making ERC20 token have the same price as Native Token. And this is the plan if I understand well, what’s been said by the team.
So if uploading 100mb costs 0.5 tokens, which are now 20 cents, in 10 years uploading 100mb will still cost 0.5 tokens, which could be 100 dollars. Do you see that as logical?
I understand, but how can a token have the same value as another token if they are two different tokens?
Isn’t it the market that sets the price of the tokens with supply and demand?
Excuse my ignorance
I am desperate for this as well, now with 01 release it’s even more frustrating the API is taking longer than thought. It’s actually there but not published on main apparently. @chriso was telling me this morning.
So I have told everyone it would be last week, the devs thought it would but we have let the community down with this one. It’s there though but slower than we thought to get published guys. Sorry about that.
don’t be so hard with yourself … I still need to collect those nanos anyway to be able to test something … and spare time is super limited anyway …
…I guess the hardest part will be changing over to the erc20 stuff when that gets implemented … and the annoying waiting time for payments to be processed and data finally appearing on the network …
the price (in tokens) for uploading depends on how the node is filled with chunks it’s responsible for now. So the more chunks the node holds out of 4096 (it’s max capacity) the more tokens uploader pays per new chunk.
how can a token have the same value as another token
So the logic is: knowing this the market (not the node) just evaluates how much the token, whatever it is ERC or Native, should cost in dollars. Supply and demand also plays a role ofc.
In other words the market “should” appraise both tokens the same as their purchasing power for data (chunks) is the same from nodes’ perspective.
One thing why price in dollars for both tokens still may be different if the availability of tokens would be different as we see it today with e-maid and MAID. But if the bridge between the tokens would be permissionless like REN or Avalanche’s it won’t be an issue either.
…
, I definitely need to learn about bridges, thanks for the clarification
… I still need to collect those nanos anyway to be able to test something … and spare time is super limited anyway …