Is that not Proof of Stake?
I know it has some detractors but am not totally clued up on why.
Anyway I think some folk in Scotland and around the world have a fix.
1 Like
There are probably more definitive sources, but ‘nothing-at-stake’ has always been core to criticisms I have seen.
Safe Network is ingenious by only allowing stakes to be earned through doing useful work on useful data over the period of time taken to accumulate said data. The significance of this shouldn’t be ignored.
Moreover, you can’t add more nodes than the network permits per unit of time. So, you can’t ‘double up’ your work to do more than the network needs. To increase what the network needs, requires an attacker to store more data, which is a cost to the attacker too, with no guarantees they will be chosen to manage that data.
It should be noted that producing data that is worth storing - that has value to someone - takes time. In effect, users and their contributions to the safe network arguably drive the rate of change over time.
EDIT: I’d derive data as useful when is has utility worth paying for. Useless data has no value in contrast and it is unlikely people will pay to store it.
8 Likes
Yes that is great. And I’m sure safe tokens will be worth a lot over time, but if the currency isn’t deflationary, have predictable coin creation like BTC, and a place where people decide to put their savings, it may be used as a currency, and a utility token, but not a store of wealth.
2 Likes
There is such a contract on the ethereum network, it gives you more tokens depending on the time that passes. This smart contract even has 2 copies, in one of the copies there is a locked ETH for $ 100 million.
I expect SaNT’s will meet that criteria just as well as BTC.
True! I understand the economics are still being refined too.
However, from the current code, we can derive a few things:
- The network splits when there is sufficient data to justify it.
- Accrued rewards are only paid out when the network splits.
- Each time a split occurs, the section funds are also split.
- The rewards must therefore decrease as the number of splits increase.
- Users define how much data is stored on the network and therefore the split rate and reward amount.
I think we could expect more user data to be stored as the network becomes adopted by a growing audience. We can also expect this to slow as mass adoption is reached. The amount of new useful data produced at this point is likely to be quite steady and predictable.
Therefore, I think we can link the minting rate with the growth of data on the network. Maybe this will be a reasonable foundation for growing the money supply?
1 Like
While interesting, the underlying network is still secured by PoW and (when the switch occurs) PoS. IMO, time needs to be a consideration at the foundation of the network.
This is a feature, not a bug - you use the security of someone else’s network and monetize time without burning energy for security. What I wanted to point out is that since there are 3 such contracts that do this and there are millions and millions of $ locked in these contracts, your intuition is correct - monetizing time is something that thousands of people want now, and probably millions after time.
1 Like
Will we have a halving event?
They haven’t finalized the rate of production yet, so we don’t know what the rate of token production will be. But there is a fixed total amount that can ever exist - same as with BTC.
Many coins have a fixed supply but they don’t have a halving event which in my opinion is very powerful.
I thought the Safe Network needed the price to be a function the number of vaults to provide sufficient security. So if the network doesn’t grow it cant sustain high valuations. I might be misunderstanding it though.
You are right, well perhaps we can say “if data use/storage does not grow” to be more exact.
1 Like
So what happens if the price got pumped by a crazy speculative crypto pump before launch. Say we hit 100 dollars before launch…how would we cope with that until adoption was sufficient to provide security?
2 Likes
This is a good question.
Given we know that more user data breeds more sections, I’d say we would need to appeal to lots of folks to upload data. If the price was truly mad, using some of that money to pay others to upload their data may also help. Maybe that isn’t a terrible problem to have?
1 Like
I would cope with it by selling massively, profiting while taking the price down. So would a lot of others who have much more.
It seems like it would be a very costly attack for whomever did it … and for what gain? The network would just be relaunched and they’d have to repeat the same failure and lose money each round.
1 Like
If that happends, you can expect the members of community to sell a bunch and getting rich. Once unsustainable price goes back, you have the same people with the pockets full of BTC helping to support the price from bottom.
But who knows, maybe 100$ before launch will be sustainable. Now I see myself holding only around 65% of my current when MAID is at 50$.
2 Likes
The difference between SNT and FIL is, that miners from FilCoin can not sell more than few percent of their FIL holding, so they can not profit from actual price much, while SNT does not have any stake system to force farmers for holding only.
I like your optimism.