In working over some related data, I again ran into something that hasn’t made sense to me at times but which I’ve never sorted out till now.
I don’t remember where it’s originally laid out, but the distribution of safecoin is supposed to be according to the following percentages:
10% crowd sale
5% existing investors
5% core development
10% app devs
These add up to 100%, right? Well, yes and no.
Something about this never quite made sense. Here’s why, and what the actual scene is.
The 15% for crowd sale and investor pools are created from the total of possible safecoins. Most or all of these will likely, eventually be spent back into the network in exchange for network resources, and thus become available for farming, just as any other safecoins which come into circulation.
The remaining categories (farmer, app dev and core dev award coins) are very different when viewed from the perspective of percentages. These safecoins are generated on an ongoing basis as shares of successful farm attempts and divided according to a relative proportion. Of the 100% of safecoins which are farmed in any given time, 0% are allocated for crowd sale or investors, as those obligations are handled by the pre-farmed coins.
The awarded coins will be generated as parts of the 100% of safecoins farmed, rather than the 100% of safecoins possible. These are different percentage pools, but they are presented in the breakdown above as part of the same 100%, thus the confusion.
Mathematically, according to these ratios, out of the total of successful farm attempts, farmers get 14/17ths, app devs get 2/17ths and the core dev pool held by the Maidsafe Foundation gets 1/17th.
In percentages, according to the above relationships, the farmers are awarded 82.24% of successful farm attempts, the app devs 11.76, and core devs 6%.
I don’t really know exactly how important this is, but it has been snagging bits of my attention that I couldn’t identify till now. It is factual and the distinction doesn’t seem to have been appreciated.
I guess implementing the algorithm could be done in a 14/2/1 priority order.
As I say, I don’t know if it’s very important, but I’ve had my say.