All going well it will be fine. So a farmer will farm for say $5 per day, this might mean the reward is 5 safecoins one day and then next it might mean 3 safecoins. The network will try to continually reduce $ amount rewards until farmers start to leave. AS the network needs more resources it will increase $ amount rewards.
The $ amount is purely a function of the market value of safecoin, but the network does not know that, it just knows if I pay 3 safecoin and farmers leave I will increase to 4 safecoins, then 5 etc. until farmers join again.
So while the network does not know $ it does know safecoin numbers required in rewards for farmers to farm.
The more interesting point I took from VaCrunch’s post there, perhaps misreading it, was the prospect of cost of different services fluxing… unclear if price might flux as different services affect pricing. Look forward to finding out as it evolves in the real world.
But the market might very well know what the current farming reward is. I am wondering if the market will constantly adjust depending on the reward payout to farmers. Will the two have a symbiotic relationship?
I wonder how quickly pricing information will travel between the market and the network itself. On the one hand, I suppose one determinant will be how quickly farmers start joining the Network if the market price of Safecoin spikes, say, 100%. On the other hand, the question of Network sensitivity remains, i.e.
will the adjustment in rewards be more continuous or discrete?
in what increments will rewards be adjusted?
how much time does it take for the new rewards amount to come into play?
Safe certainly requires a much more complex and dynamic “algorithm” than bitcoin.
Not so much controlled at all by farmers as it’s set as a reward that is balanced by the amount Clients are paying to mutate/store etc. If we ignore initial payments (the start up algo) then the farmers are getting paid relative to the costs charged to clients to store.
So when we need more farmers costs to clients increases to give us the cash to pay out. As the rewards decrease then cost to store decreases for clients. This is the constant balance we are trying to achieve. As clients will vastly outnumber farmers the the cost differential for clients is likely very small, but at the other side (farmers) the rewards differential is much larger, just related to size of both groups.
These are the key points we need to test in beta. The network should react very quickly to price changes (likely measured in minutes, possibly seconds). The increments need tested for sure but should be quite quick as well, this may be good to be slower, we cannot tell just yet. However the reward will come into play almost immediately as the rewards alter.
When we get this part in play we will simulate it to let folk see and play with parameters, except the main parameter of course which is human behaviour.
When the network needs more farmers (which should be the case in the beginning if Safe becomes popular) then the rewards will increase, no? Those studying the market for Safecoin and the details of the rewards system will probably see this network growth as a positive and, thus, invest more heavily in Safecoin, driving up the price. So, at least in the early stages of the network, it seems to me that there will be a correlation between growth of the network (and the resulting higher rewards) and the price of Safecoin. That’s assuming those playing one metric against the other carry enough investment clout to affect the price. I don’t think that assumption is far-fetched.
I just have a strong feeling that the two, Safecoin market price and farming rewards, must have a bearing on one another in some way, and I am trying to understand what the mechanism might be. Will the popularity of the network help drive the market price? If not what will be the main impetus for market movement, other than random short-term fluctuations and overall prevailing crypto sentiment (which usually follows the lead of BTC). If one does not influence the other might as well call the coin “AnotherCoin” and not even represent that it is connected to the Safe Network. Maybe someone could help me out here.
If coins are easy to get then the price will have downward pressure in $ terms
Then that will reduce the $$ they get for the same amount of coins and people will leave and rate of leaving increases as $ returns drop
Then at some point coins are not so easy to get on the market and there will be upward pressure on the $ value. So then eventually there will people deciding to farm and we eventually get to the start of the cycle again.
Over time this would likely even out somewhat as farmers learn not to react to price drop so quickly
So much depends on what kind of attitude is needed for farming, and how much of a nuisance farming is for the farmer. And of course how much benefit they will be getting.
I think that the original vision of using spare resources kind of had the idea of “zero effort” for the farmer baked in. But it was born in the era when smartphones were not the default device for web use. Now, personally, even opening a laptop is a bit of a special case for me, let alone leaving it on. But once set up, I could leave it on without bothering too much about the economics, if it doesn’t hiss and hum too much. I have spare space in my computer, but I don’t have spare space in my house, and I really don’t like the sounds of devices. (I had to quit Folding from home for this reason.) I need to be able to co-exist with my node without it bothering me too much - or get enough money to stand the nuisance and justify the nuisance to my family.
Now if farming with smartphone is feasible, then I could see it really happening in the background of my life. Maybe I would get dropped out too frequently to get to elder position, but I might prefer to get a little money and contribute a little, just because it is so easy to do so.
(OK, in reality I am going to be dedicated farmer, but the kind of considerations above have considerable weight in my decision making, not just the if money I make is more than energy spent, or what I could be making some other way with my computer.)
That is what i am saying. But the delay will be there. Just because farmers leave does not mean they are not still selling the coins they made the week before. And the farming rewards more likely remains a similar amount and then increase as more farmers leave.
Its not an instant effect. If it was then the market would be up/down farmers leaving/joining instantly.
But rather the leaving is very slow to start and the rewards would still be reasonable. but at some point of farmers leaving the coin supply slows down and as they keep leaving the coin supply is not meeting the demand and price slowly rises. Then as more farmers leave the effect is bigger.
So while the price of the coin turns around slowly there maybe a very few decide its time to start farming again, but this would be slow since the price is not good enough yet, and as it rises the new farmers are increasing and eventually it gets back to the point we started at
EDIT: I did not explain that well did I. Basically the answer is that there will be delays and people leave or join slowly at first and then increasingly with some delays between leaving and coin rewards changing and amount per coin changing
1.-Data is the main value of the network. A network without data, regardless of the temporary reward a farmer receives, is worth nothing and their token will tend to decrease in price.
2.-Any user, who already has data stored in the original network, will hardly change to a new network because it involves cost and work.
3.-Many farmers will also be Safecoin holders who will never participate in anything that devalues their assets.
4.-An established farmer is unlikely to lose his privileged position in the original network for immediate benefit. It is a risk that very few will take.
In the worst case, he will continue to work in two or more networks.
5.-It seems extremely difficult to coordinate enough farmers to fork the network, so we are in a completely different situation from those seen in the cryptoworld.
6.-I believe that there will be other networks, most of them private, focused on specific subjects. But these networks in no way diminish the value of the primary network.
Yes! This, imo, cannot be emphasized enough. The current status of a farmer’s “privileged position” should be front and center on the UI, prominently displayed with an approximate measure of what will be needed for advancement of the position also noted somehow. This, alone might be enough to dissuade a farmer from rechanneling his resources to a competitor. Sort of like refusing to change jobs because of the seniority and vested interest you have already built up in the current job.
How much money do you think the farmer will risk losing from his “privileged position”? 1-2-5-$1000 ? In my opinion, farming will not bring in more than $10 a month. I base this on experiments as a farmer in the Sia network and Storj…