I love economic discussions. It’s good to be thinking outside the box. Here’s my thoughts.
The ISP solution does not seem plausible for the following reasons.
- ISP’s hold a monopoly over the physical cable/telephone lines in their area. They don’t share wealth because they don’t have to. Expansion of their services also costs money.
- ISP’s want local fiat currency because they have to pay for technicians, maintenance, power, construction, etc. If they received Safecoin for their services, they run a secondary risk due to crypto exchange volatility. It’s hard enough trying to keep pace with fiat valuations alone.
- ISP’s, in some cases, can be pressured by governments for control. I don’t see this trend getting better. Collaborating with ISP’s means making it known they are supporting the SAFE Network. We might be better with a “don’t ask don’t tell” anonymity approach.
If the ISP gives free access, would it have to know if the consumer was accessing the SAFE Network VS the regular internet?
If the ISP doesn’t know, then users could exploit free access to surf the regular internet at the ISP’s expense. I can hear some people cheering already.
If the ISP does know, then users run a risk of the SAFE connection being terminated at will.
Maybe I’m wrong, and ISP’s would come around to the idea.
Here’s how I see the break down.
- Hardware… user provides.
- Power… user pays utility company.
- Connection… user pays ISP or Meshnet in the future.
Up to this point, users already manage this part of the chain. The SAFE Network is like a giant online App Store. Users provide their own means (car, train, bus, bike) of getting to the store. But once they are in the store, Safecoin economics take over.
I agree PUT / GET is not a direct relationship. I also think a consumption model GET / GET is more effective, once all Safecoins have been minted.