I personally don’t think that’s so much of an issue in most instances, in fact is a good thing. The reason being that they have to be paid in their own crypto,too, which may not be too appealing to buyers. The issue as I see it is with large corporations issuing their own crypto, because that will be appealing to many. People may use Apple coin or Amazon coin, but probably not Joe Bloggs coin.
However, I do see issues with if say we have a paedo- coin, or crack-coin etc.
I also have another gut feeling that all open source apps earning Safecoin, may also cause problems too for similar reasons. I wouldn’t like to see a scenario where a huge corporation has it’s own coin and also earns Safecoin with it’s “open-source” interface, generating many millions of hits. Can you imagine if we set this up so huge corporations pay nothing and also leech from the economy at the same time? Just throwing it out there.
I’m not sure, but think there is a general solution, which is good because it means we don’t have to get it right in advance - no need to anticipate all cases and pre-plan.
What is/is not permitted on SAFE is according to the concensus of the network, so if we find BigCo doing stuff we don’t like, network concensus will be offended and changes set in motion to correct. This is more self-healing, but based on a democratic process that is ultimately acted on by the MaidSafe Foundation, under advice from the board, if not by some built in voting mechanism. Ultimately the latter I guess, but I don’t know when that is likely to be implemented.
@dirvine can you comment briefly on whether this is what he envisages, and/or if it is feasible technically and legally.
Yeah, something like this would absolutely disincentive me from wanting to be a builder on “our” system if it’s going to get “hijacked”… This is interesting. I’ll have to think on this more. @AlKafir, are you in risk management or something along those lines 
Painter and decorator, lol. Btw Happybeing, I feel I must disagree (not like me eh?..lol) rather that if we can foresee problems ahead, then it would be best to mitigate these now, rather than adopt a “wait and see” policy.
This is where we can get protection at least with the charge for companies not working in crypto only. They have to fully open source (great) or pay for that (also great). Its like bitcoin a bit though, if they try and destroy the infrastructure they destroy their own business. I am not sure we need to protect ourselves too much from that kind of thing. Off the top of my head anyway.
So in reply to my scenario (a few posts earlier), the answer is that, if it happens, then we’ll deal with it after its already happened? I just think that if any large corporation went to all the trouble of setting things up, then they are not going to go gently into the night - they will launch legal proceedings which cannot be afforded to be defended against.
Jeez…I feel like a right doom merchant, but still not convinced.
I agree they won’t destroy the network - but I think the question is do we want them able to use their scale to gain advantage over smaller outfits, or to give wealthy corporations a free ride (cost advantage) based on contributions of many far less wealthy individuals.
I guess the analogy here is that when businesses grow too big, they become powerful, difficult to regulate and cab be detrimental to the collective, even to the point of destroying it. So perhaps we could have mechanisms to limit this, providing network-wide governance, where world-centric governance is currently lacking?
Mark
New idea: 1% fee goes to back into the network to pay creators of open source apps. 
Expanding on this thought, in general I would like to see as much of the payouts being automated by the network itself rather than the foundation.
Not to question the motives of individual foundation board members but in general centralized groups of people with power tend to prove corruptible.
I agree and this is paramount as we move forward. The foundation does not really want ot be making those decisions anyway. there will be error for sure. WE have a great scheme with builders so if we can do the same with network recyled safecoin we may be OK. So if the 1% charge were simply reclyled then job done There is however seed funds for the pods, but maybe kickstarter, us and other mechanisms can work there to.
Seems like the combination of automatic payouts via network and crowdfunding would potentially cover funding the pods once seed funds are used up.
Also, wouldn’t it be simple enough to see how much each pod is contributing to the network via accepted commits and subsequently the protocol updates that include those commits?