The video is setting out the terms we are changing, in other words, don’t read into it that anything not mentioned is being dropped.
As others have mentioned though, the term farm or farming isn’t of massive importance to most people in their use of the Network. I can happily go about my business without encountering it, and all it well. So in that respect, I would probably put it in the second tier of the end user lexicon, or perhaps in the only in the lexicon of a specific subset of users.
Also, on this note, the word “user” is a very meta thing, and not a term we’d use to refer to anyone in the actual UX writing. Especially not for an autonomous network.
Even in the design stage we try our best to avoid the word, as it can be a bit dehumanising, and can take your eye off who you are actually designing for. Although admittedly, it is unavoidable at times.
Yeah, this is the way I ended up leaning after looking at lots of different options. Another contender was NETS, as it helped the nudge along a slang term somewhat. But I think SN is more in keeping with the rest of the thinking: succinct, accurate, and aligned with everything else.
I didn’t actually make that symbol BTW… it was another forum member. My concern in the end was that it was a little too close to the Filecoin symbol.
I did have some other candidate designs, but in the end I think it makes sense to propagate a single icon, especially in the early days of the Network, then once things fall into regular use, we can have a look at it again. It’s the same logic as having ‘Safe Network’ for the token name, rather than a parallel term.
Creating and disseminating a currency symbol that is unique and useful has some significant challenges to it, not least of which is distributing in a way that works in different writing systems. Many (maybe most) cryptocurrencies haven’t achieved this, even the more mature ones. So I feel we shouldn’t worry to much about it, and like the slang term for the token, wait and see where folk go with it.
So basically MaidSafe has to create a smart contract that they own for ERC20 Safe Network Token.
I don’t know what the total supply is of Safe Network Tokens when it is live? You could create a capped smart contract and create whole supply in one go, that is then released by a native Safe Network Token address where people deposit their SNT into. In turn the created supply moves the ERC20 tokens from the smart contract owner to the individuals who deposit the SNT.
Also possible to make a capped smart contract and do mint & burn, only mint when native Safe Network Tokens get locked up, and burn them on release. This way you know exactly how much is locked up and it also shrinks when people redeem native tokens.
It’s also possible that we create a smart contract now, it can be viewed publicly from anywhere and the owner can transfer the ownership to MaidSafe (and prior creator will renounce all its rights) who will then be the one that will be responsible to run the locking, minting and burning of tokens and providing a proper interface for users to communicate with the smart contract/deposit/withdraw funds.
Very nice work Jim. You presented these ideas very well, well anticipated my initial reaction to changes, and got me on board easily.
Just a “few” comments:
I really like the move away from the terms “Account” and “login”. I really like the very intuitive “lock” and “unlock” terms.
I really like the graphical layout images you have presented.
I agree that the token symbol should be the same safe network icon we’ve been using.
The consistent use of “Safe Network” instead of the SAFE acronym is growing on me. I also like that you kept the logo of SAFE NETWORK in all caps. I think these two representations are logically self-consistent.
I struggled with the deprecation of “Vault”. It is a synonym for a “Safe” and seems like a useful term, even if it is not used in the same manner as previously to refer to a node. I thought that perhaps instead of converting “Account → Safe” you could do “Account → Vault”. I understand why you chose the “Account → Safe” option and see your logic. But also consider this alternative, I think the nuance here adds a subtle variation that is nice. When it comes to definitions, I believe the only difference between vault and safe is that a Safe refers to a small secure box whereas a Vault refers to a larger one. You can also refer to a vault as an otherwise large secure chamber that is part of some grand architecture. Perhaps a Vault could be an interface for organizations whereas a safe is more personal for an individual? I kind of like that differentiation.
–Personal: “Secure your Digital Life. Create a Safe.”
–Personal: “Secure your Digital Experience. Create a Safe.”
–Corporate/Organization: “Secure your Digital Works. Create a Vault.”
–Corporate/Organization: “Secure your Digital Assets. Create a Vault.”
On one of your graphics you state “Add space, get paid.” I think this should instead be “Add resources, get paid.” That way you can maintain the simple “proof of resource” description in the lexicon. Safe nodes offer a lot more than just space.
I find “Earn” to be a troubling verb. There is a visceral reaction and a logical one. Possible user questions/claims: “If I’m earning, what am I earning?”, "Is the network my employer, is maidsafe my employer? “Earning means you will pay me money right?” “You scammed me, what are these worthless token things?”, “I haven’t earned anything yet just because my internet connection was down and my computer was turned off for the past week, you scammed me!”
Farming was only briefly referenced. Is that term gone? If “Farming” terminology is still a possibility, then I would recommend the verb GROW instead instead of EARN. For example “Add resources, get paid.Start growing”
If Farming is no longer with us, then here are some other verbs to consider that I find more aesthetically pleasing than earn:
“Add resources, get paid. Start Working” : You need to work first, then if you do a good job the network might reward you. The reward you are given is not guaranteed to have any monetary value, but you are still guaranteed that your computer will be given a lot of work to do.
– “Add resources, get paid. Start Growing” : Still works if you get rid of the farming analogy since they are growing the network.
– “Add resources, get paid. Start Processing” : They are joining a computational machine for fun and educational purposes only, there is no guarantee that they will ever make a profit.
Last but not least, “Safe Network TOKEN”. This is a hard one to digest. The official loss of Safecoin is a sad day, but the writing was on the wall so no worries. I follow your logic and understand your reasoning completely. I get the benefits of a generic. There are pros and cons. I’m fine with getting rid of the word “coin”. Having the full “Safe Network” in the official name has grown on me and I like that too now. I think the problem I am having with this one might come down to linguistics and the different meanings we have for this on the opposite side of the pond from where you are for token. In my region, a token is often considered something of no value or basically worthless, dirty, fleeting. Kids convert real money into worthless tokens to get a cheap 90 second thrill playing a video game at an arcade or going on an amusement park ride in the mall or at the beach. The tokens often look rather cheezy made from plastic or aluminum and come with the catch phrase stamped on them of “No Monetary Value”. This is changing now, with credit cards using the term “tokenization” to describe there improved security and online payment features such as “Visa Token”. So perhaps “Safe Network Token” is the perfect moniker to keep things bland and utilitarian and compete directly with these other networks… it’s starting to grow on me too. However, EDIT: I’m sold, Safe Network Token is my favorite!
I really hope MaidSafe will take (reserve) the ticker by doing an ERC20 swap. It will help the network even after launch and it would be easier to build a ERC20 → Safe network bridge anyway. Not to mention it would be a huge benefit to the community. MAID was always temporary, ERC20 and the new ticker can be built into the network as an app, which can be used until it provides no value.
This swap has far more value to the Safe network & community than it costs in admin, and yet I know it won’t happen. I really don’t understand why.
If MaidSafe only swapped 100k chunks of coins thats only 750 transactions. (380 million coins)
If MaidSafe swapped 1k chunks that around 7500 transactions. (449 million coins)
If MaidSafe swapped 20 or more (lower than that isn’t worth the transaction cost) is 15000 transactions.
Thats not an insane amount of admin, even at 15000 transactions for the value it provides. if every transaction took 4 minutes to eyeball and validate, it would take less than 10 working days to complete them all
I would prefer “Safe Tokens” or “Safe Credits”. I’m not all too familiar with the use of “notes” - perhaps in the UK this is more used… ie. a 6 GBP note etc, but i think less in the rest of the world, where “note” is more like a note on a piece of paper.
Anyway, as the network grows up as @JimCollinson said in the video, a name will emerge…
But yes, in short Safe Network Tokens/Credits/Notes is very long.
It was considered, but it’s the simplicity and synergy with the name of the Network that swung it in the end.
Perhaps there is a place for it somewhere down the line.
However, if it is just down to the notional size of the thing, then it doesn’t make too much sense. There are no practical limits on the size, or amount of data a Safe could contain.
Plus, there would be no need for the distinction between a business one and a personal one, as there is really only a need for one Safe per unique human. If a business entity were to establish on the network, it would be more about coordinating shared data between SafeIDs/owners. Perhaps that is where a vault might come in, but only if the metaphor helps the model. Something tells me it might muddy it somewhat.
Then there is the lesser point of flipping the meaning and repurposing a name that already has quite a lot of discussion and history on the forum and wider community. That is perhaps more of an irritation than a dealbreaker, but it adds friction nonetheless, and it’s perhaps unnecessary when there is a viable alternative.
I perhaps should have made it more clear that we don’t need to pin everything on a single verb, but more that we’d focus more on the language of outcomes for the user, and then pick the appropriate verb for the context—one that would help them get things done in the most understandable way. And I’m positing that in most instances, particularly for new users, their thinking will be along the lines of…
“Ok, I need some of these tokens to use the network, how do I get them? I can buy some, I can be gifted some, or I can earn some”.
An alternative there might be something to do with being rewarded but perhaps that implies a sort of gifting, at the whim of the network, rather than an understandable repeatable trade. But it might work in the right context.
Grow could work in the context of farming. But it’s having to work quite hard. Or rather, the user requires a fair bit more upfront knowledge about what farming is to the network, to make the term work. Without that context, “Start Growing” could be read in a number of ways.
So in some ways, I’d be thinking, is this metaphor trying to be to smart for it’s own good? Are we making things harder for people, because we are worried things might not feel as wholesome as we’d like?
There is only one way to find out of course… and that’s to see how these verbs work with real people. And we should be open to the unexpected.
Yes, I had similar feeling about the Token label too. But as you say, it’s the Safe Network part which is the important bit.
The token part is really about more of an emerging legal classification rather than it having marketing pizzazz. In that regard, it is akin to those tokens you used to buy as a kid that could only be used at a fairground, rather than the fairground attempting to mint its own currency or security that could be used anywhere… which of course would lead these things to be treated in a very different way from a regulation point of view.*
It’s this reasoning that steered me away from some of the candidate terms that were more money oriented: notes, coins, bills, sovereigns etc.
You got me Jim. I loved those arcade tokens when I was a kid. Safe Network Tokenis the perfect word descriptor. It just took a little time to get some sleep and rewire my thinking after hearing SafeCoin for over two years. You have no idea how much money I spent at the local arcade playing video games with my friends and having fun at the amusement parks. I didn’t care how cheap and tarnished those tokens were, they let me enter another world. Fond memories. Give me more tokens Jim, Safe Network Tokens. Let’s buy some chunks and have some fun with an autonomous data network.
I think all these vocabulary changes make great sense and clean up the language a lot. As I’m very familiar with BTC and the concept of mining so I too felt like a de-emphasis on “farming” could be missing out on a way to differentiate SAFE. It’s a clever analogy that I really liked since I first heard about this project years ago. But I think that initial reaction I had was perhaps a little misguided.
As I think about this more, I am in favor of dropping farming at lest at the top level of discussion. It is too limiting and implies a process that’s still too close to mining. A better analogy (not that I’m suggesting that we need one) would be earning some money by renting a spare room out. Thus “earn” is absolutely the best way to describe getting a reward for a passive investment of computer resources. My newly found concern with “farming” is that it implies an ongoing effort that requires money, time, and expertise. Earning rewards is the exact opposite of that. It is quick, easy, and requires next to no expertise to start. Earning Safe Tokens is about as far away from trying to earn/mine block-chain rewards as is possible to conceive. And for those who don’t know about mining, “earning” is a simple, direct message. Well done.
Btw - I still think we need to stay away from terms related to bugs/insects. As much as I like bees and ants, there are way too many people who will be subconsciously turned off by any reference to them.
@JimCollinson. As I said above, you sold me on the term “token”. You must have considered “Safe Token” as a short and sweet version of “Safe Network Token”. What was your thinking on this? Is it that you consider Safe Network Token the official name and the community will probably just call them Safe Tokens or Safes in a casual manner anyhow?
Regardless, I surely hope that the trademark applications for “Safe Network Token” and “Safe Token” were submitted yesterday at the latest.
The idea is to primarily and unambiguously propagate the name Safe Network, and not so much the Tokeny bit. So for example, as in the image in the video/thread, we’d just title it Safe Network on exchanges.
Folk know exactly what they are getting then, and what it is for.
Leave out the ‘Network’ and yes it’s cleaner to say, but it leaves a small window of ambiguity alongside existing crypto currencies such as:
Safe (SAFE)
Safex Token (SFT)
SafeCoin (SAFE)
But yeah, in day-to-day use, folk would probably just end up using a term like “Safe Tokens” or “Safes” etc. And then when the token is more established, we’d be able to introduce those terms more confidently into the UX.
