hmhmmm you mean that when farming gets cheaper the developer/artists rewards will tend to go down because there is a %-connection that really is an issue i think … but there should be a topic dealing with this …
Uhm! one moment - but on the other hand farming reward has to pay for new and old capacites … and have you ever seen that people started using less disk space than before …?! Storage space might become significantly cheaper over time … but i don’t think farming will (but probably more intelligent people than me should think about this topic a little bit …)
Let’s straighten out the confusion regarding the “10% reward.”
Nothing is set in stone.
AFAIK, this originally started when talking about APP rewards… not CONTENT rewards. I believed it was a portion of the VAULT reward because of the way it was explained… a percentage of something. Some people propagated this understanding, including myself.
Allow me to correct it…
Wrong Explanation
Assume the Farming Reward is 10 Safecoins.
The Vault earns 9 SC.
The App earns 1 SC.
Right Explanation
Assume the Farming Reward is 10 Safecoins.
The Vault earns 10 SC.
The App earns 1 SC.
Using the right explanation, the (vault) and (app) are not sharing the farming reward. They are farming at different rates. In other words, the (vault) farms at 1/1 of the reward, while the (app) farms at 1/10 of the reward.
The “Farming Reward” fluctuates based on the Networks supply/demand mechanic. This is also backwards. It’s actually the amount of GET replies needed to farm attempt 1 Safecoin, because the Network doesn’t mint fractions of Safecoin.
I would rewrite the explanation using “farming difficulty” instead of “farming reward”…
Farming Difficulty
How many successful GETS needed per 1 Safecoin farm attempt.
If the SAFE Network has low usage (10% used storage), the difficulty goes up… more GETS needed per farm attempt. This also increases the amount of storage 1 Safecoin buys.
If the SAFE Network has high usage (90% used storage), the difficulty goes down… less GETS needed per farm attempt. This also decreases the amount of storage 1 Safecoin buys.
In relation to this thread, we are discussing “content” rewards. My suggestions would be 1/100 rate for content… but that’s just my opinion. We’ll have to see how caching affects the farming rate. I would also encourage a tipping/donation culture along with content rewards.
EDIT
After full release, people could make Safecoin from developer contributions to the core code. I believe it’s called the bounty program. The program only pays bitcoin right now.
Original authors could ID themselves and/or their authorized publishers.
Sites could provide links to external (Internet) or internal (SAFE) URLs that would contain proof of first publishing (I would prefer the former as most of original content is, and will probably be, published on the Web (not because it’s somehow better, but because anyone can visit the web, while only people with SAFE clients can visit SAFE).)
The both of these measures would be voluntary, to make it easier to distinguish authors and make it easier for visitors to reward the authors.
I think the SAFE Network should have a very simple compensation system. You pay for all the bandwidth you use (GET and PUT) and you are paid for all the bandwidth you provide. If you provide 500 MB of bandwidth a day, you can use that much for free that day. Providing more than you use, and profit. Use more than you provide, and pay.
This thread is filled with all sorts of questions and proposals that are way outside the scope of a compensation system intended to keep a network operating. Fair compensation for people in other roles should be handled at higher layers of the network. It should be solved as an engineering problem because it’s an engineering problem. This is not the place to experiment with business models and new types of governance/politics.
Well, network bandwidth is currently not monetized, so that would be something for v2 or some other future version.
But network is not related to authorship over content you may upload (let alone serve).
I think proposals/ideas above are not intended to keep the network operating (as-is, it can operate), but more around how to ensure that content authors, rather than uploaders, get rewarded. The network is designed to reward uploaders, partially because it can’t tell who’s an author & uploader and who is just an uploader.
Shouldn’t secure access for everyone be its own reward? Granted, YouTube does reward people. My point is that if you see this as a low-level network, it should not be in the business of determining awards like an application would. Either apps or other networks built on top of SAFE should do that. And they shouldn’t be coupled to the SAFE Network. The chances of getting the reward system right are hard, and getting it wrong might limit the longevity and utility of the network. So I’d like to see decisions and functionality in SAFE Network that empower apps and higher level networks, rather than rules that dictate how everything should work at every level.
There are no unique creators, not even John Lennon. If an artist doesn’t put something out another one will put out something close enough. If its not what the general pubic wants its less likely to be highly compensated. We need the older more Platonic channel model of IP back desperately. That model made so much more sense and didn’t allow corporate prima donnas to get in the way of progress. Under that model the so-called artist is just an instrument and not an entitled creator or silly rights holder. The old master piece paintings weren’t signed due to a similar understanding.
I really don’t want the so called artists to have any say at all about what their associated work sells for as that’s a perversity. I don’t want the artist to in anyway force payment or be able to withhold access on a proffered work because there won’t be a refund so its better that the payment is after-the-fact and really only to encourage future works and only what an end user wants to pay for it including nothing especially if the end user can’t afford to pay. That’s what it comes down to, just enough to prime the pump for creative works and nothing absolutely nothing more. That is what will get the widest distribution. Most artists will work for free because its about expressing the music and not about the fame or fortune. Most would gladly trade any recompense for global dissemination.
Trying to assert theft and trying to appeal to DRM and ads and all of this trying to make room for labels that profit from censorship and enclosure is nonsense. When it comes to IP the issue is what is in the public’s best interest and almost nothing at all with regard to the supply side. The public more than owns these markets, the baseline is fair use for it all, Its not 50/50 its not even 99 to 1 its all about the public interest.
We’re free to decide we like the Elvis impersonator more than Elvis. The universe is free to place the artist in a parallel universe along side a slightly older version of himself with result that the older version gets all the credit and money. We can have copies of artists not just uploaded copies of content. Its time to do what is in the public’s best interest an not get side tracked about paying artists, we can up their welfare payments instead. Couldn’t matter less if the artist is defacto free(dom) music state with regard to peddling wares. The public is starting to see the light on this stuff and they soon won’t tolerate being guilted over stupidity.
Since it is not personal experience, where did you get your numbers from? Guessing? Btw. artists are not just musicians.
Your ignorance of creators rights on determining an offer goes far beyond of what has been said in this thread. Currently most artists are prostituting themselves and apparently some people believe that “they like it”. Those are mostly the same people who believe that the internet has helped artists on avarage to get rewarded - the opposite is true. Future models will rely on different forms of restriction (as the video game industry shows graphically) or (as we can see in the indie music sector) simply die. There will be no 100,000,000$ video game like battlefield based on donations - they will either request a price and crowd-fund or embed their digital product to a scarce ressource such as a social community.
What you’re whining about is simply irrelevant, relative to the issue of access it doesn’t matter whether artist get paid at all. They can collect a welfare check like everyone else displaced by automation.
Let me see if I can make artists absolute non rights here even a little more clear. Go back some years to the time of the classical masters. Almost everyone is enslaved. There is still high art, but its attributed to the devine. No one is whining about artists not being able to charge people. Fast forward to the present where automation is freeing people from the necessity of toil. Again, no room for whining about artist can’t charge people. Oh look with the right sized welfare check artists have all the time they need to produce music. Looks like they got paid. Its an absolute non issue. Call it a automation inheritance check if it makes you feel better.
You’re trying to make the typical tragedy of the commons bs arguement. Its says roughly that Psy would be better off with Google and Led Zeppelin and the Beatles with the coropratists molesting them and us, because freedom leads to rivers that catch fire never corporatists. It transparent.
Pay the producer is really “pay the promoter”. This is OK, but it should be renamed. Obviously you have no way of knowing who produced what content. But you do know who generated the most get requests… which is with 99% probability, the “promoter” of the content… not the producer.
The person who created the new content will be (in the vast majority of cases) the first person to upload it because they will be the first person to have it lol. So they have first mover advantage over the rest of the whole world
Why do you think otherwise?
(this does not apply for old / already created works, only future works, to be made)
With a system like n99, profit from safecoin can automatically be distributed to the wallets of each contributor of a given media according to the split originally agreed upon at point of upload.
cool, but I firmly believe this needs to be network-level like App rewards, so that no matter how people access your song etc (through SAFEsoundcloud, SAFEtube, etc), the creator will ALWAYS receive the rewards.
NOT only if it’s watched / consumed through n99 exclusively.
This could prove insanely powerful for the world if implemented at the network level.
Right because it’s not like every major Hollywood movie for the last 5 years hasn’t been leaked to torrent even before it was released. Oh wait, they all have.