Debate about central planning vs. free market for negotiating the PUT price

I think the system with a simple way of balancing things out like storage demand and rewards will make everyone happy:

  1. when the network has available space it will give incentives to people and organisation to PUT data
  2. when the network is tending to fill up it will give incentives for someone to be a vault

and all this because as I said before the network and only it know these stuff and if we give choise to the humans involved then some humans will gain lots and other humans will get pulled out of the network. I believe a simple algo treats all humans the same, where if humans have ways of winning then the other humans get kicked out

edit: dont loose your time reading this thread… just look at the proposition of JoeSmithJr and all this talking for nothing:

and my response that explains what he proposes and how bad the proposition is:

All of that can be achieved with a market except it would be un-gamable (in at least one important way), more efficient, and without risks of screwing everything up by failed central planning.

That’s how literally every communist regime has started.

Because that has worked in the real world, right? People aren’t the same and they also don’t like to be treated as if they were. That’s the equivalent of saying that if you don’t like it you are free to leave. It’s rude and counterproductive.


when there is demand and supply a simple algo is all we need for there to be balance. if we put in competition and strategies there are big winners and big losers.

look at the world with free economy there are people dying from hunger and people with billions


you cannot say no to a system that will be the one way.

you will find ways to use it best, why give people the tools to gain in the loss of other people?

1 Like

the communist regieme is not making everyone happy, its about controlling what everyone does by a party BY A GROUP OF PEOPLE so the COUNTRY becomes the most powerfull, so actually A GROUP OF POEPLE DOMINATING THE WORLD

edit an algo that balances supply and demand based on the goal of making the safe network powerfull is treating all people the same and all are welcome to participate

when the safe network is powerfull it offers in sociaty all the goals that it was made for, security, anonymity, anti-censorship

nonone person with strategy can take all the safecoins

Wow. Is that what we want? World domination at all cost, consciously refusing a way to give people choices? Not that it would work, I’m just questioning the approach.

Sorry but the Safe network is going to be a tool for the loss of many people no matter what you want. Terrorism, human trafficking, child pornography: pick your choice, they will all be there. It’s a tool given to people to achieve potentially worse things than making 5% more than that other dude.

If that’s how you think it would work, firstly, I suspect you have never tried trading and have no idea just how fiercely equalizing competition is and, secondly, you ignore we’re talking about as simple as asking payment for a finite and tangible resource. It’s really not such a radical concept. On the other hand, demanding that prices are set by a central government (that is, your simple algo) is a radical idea.


should we outlaw roads? should we all walk into forrests to move from point a to point b in order to help combat illegal things that use the roads?

I believe anti-censhorship should be a right to everyone and if we want to combat illegal stuff we should find ways with anticeshorship in place

dude you blind or brain dead? people die from hunger and people have billions! you testify such a system on the safe network where one with a game plan can dominate the safecoins and one without a gameplan make nothing!!!

by promoting the absolute value of anticeshorship and equal access to rewards we get more than we lose!

This is not going anywhere anymore. I would suggest these past several post should be put away somewhere by a mod as it was mostly just two dudes arguing. Suggested title: “Debate about central planning v.s. free market for negotiating the PUT price”


do you think that our opposite opinions dont help the rfc? if thats the case, I propose we make another thread and ask a moderator to move our discussion and we can talk about it and other people add to our arguments


ok bro, I am just trying to help here! no need for negative feelings!!!

I think I’ll stop at this point. I have other stuff to take care of too :slight_smile:


I would like to share some points on how my brain thinks of market supply, demand and so on.

Rambling about supply/demand:
In my mind a perfect optimal solution is a pure form where supply and demand rule, the market will always find equilibrium. Pure supply/demand gives that if price/profits high, more vaults join until profit margins become relative low. opposite if price/profit low, below break even or so, then more vaults would leave and price moves up to break even or higher. On the demand side if price is above general users expectations than less will be stored which gives a downpreassure on price, opposite if price relative low, users will be happy to store more and price moves up.

I think of a network where a section of nodes gets a connection from a user. That sections contacs about 40 other sections asking for price to store, uptime, speed/latency. The user can with sliders choose if they value low price, speed/latency, uptime or a combination. Then the section choose the optimal weighted solution of price, speed/latency, uptime, choosen by the user, too store the users data.

The writing above are general thoughts/inspiration, don’t know what is possible in a technical way.

1 Like

If I understood correctly you want a system that so people offer better storage/response and get rewarded better by people who want that and people with less storage/response are getting paid by people that dont care about response ?

Wouldnt that be a way of aome making lots of money and aome make low money?

Tell me if what I said is what you say

There is no ‘free economy’ that’s a total misunderstanding of the world we live in. Governments rule by force and allow central banks to print money and local banks to apply FRB (fractional reserve banking) rules that create mass bank credit at incredible rates.

This sort of monetary inflation has been countered by tech innovation and the ability of businesses around the world to supply more and more and lower and lower prices – but even so, this is a silent THEFT of the peoples wealth - right out of everyone’s wallet … hence there is NO ‘free economy’ and yes, this IS why people around the world are suffering.

It’s not purely the fault of the people IN government either - it’s the fault of ALL those who keep using their fake money that allows such theft to go on and on. Hence we ARE ALL RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PAIN AND SUFFERING OF HUMANITY. Using their money allows the theft to continue and destroys ANY AND ALL prospects for a truly free economy.

Now, back to the point here. I don’t know if you saw the linke I posted in the other thread about the “economic calculation problem” … but IMO, it’s a good example of why only markets will be able to solve the problem of price discovery.

I humbly ask that you take some time to read up on it. You can simply google the term, but here are some links on the topic that I found for you:

A simple explanation of the calculation problem (10 minutes):

A detailed discussion on the debate surrounding the calculation problem (1.5 hours):

In the simple video he talks about how people under a socialist system (non-market system) will lie one way or anther for their own protection and or profit. The same would happen without a market in SAFE - people will modulate the resources they allocate to the network to drive the price mechanism to suit themselves - this puts network users at odds with network farmers.

There are innumerable use-cases for SAFE’s coin besides the use the network requires it for - hence the network will be fundamentally incapable of determining a suitable valuation of it.

That’s how I see it anyway. Maybe the Earth is flat and the moon is made of cheese and ideas don’t matter.


Yes, I think you could look at it in that way you described.

People who live in areas where electricity and components are priced relative lower will have a competitive advantage and a relative lower break even than others who live in a places where prices are higher. For a user the latency to store cheaper might be relative high and then they can choose an option which is relative closer but costs more. One thought is that many might run vaults regardless of profit, just to cover some of their data store costs or just to support the network (Tor runs without anyone getting paid).

Build a network that gives good performance for each users preference (if possible). If some people make more or others less, might be of some importance, but should be considered a lower tier question/problem.

And when reading some of the above previous comments it is indeed necessary to remind people to discuss the topic with logical arguments, don’t make personal attacks and don’t deviate to discuss other things than related to the topic.

@TylerAbeoJordan It would be interesting to discuss some economics but maybe in off topic. Some of your explanations between economics and suffering seems a little mixed up and seems to lack a solid foundation of economic knowledge. It might be helpfull with lectures/books about macro/micro economics, monetary/political economics and so on.

This might be helpfull, it helped me with studies. Lectures from Yale and a bonus of former Riksbanken price winner (Nobel winner) professor Shiller. It is a list of lectures, choose any order or interest, for exampel banking, monetary. Suggestion 1-3 (introduction-innovation), 8 theory of debt, 11-13 (behavioral-banks), 18 (monetary policy)


Very patronizing. I have a minor in economics and have spent the last decade studying it quite a lot. I won’t presume to tell you what you should do.

If you disagree with my facts and theory, then argue them specifically.


it’s important to allow people to succeed and fail by their own will. if you don’t have a “gameplan” you can always join with a group that might need extra help? is your fear this? “if i can’t have my lambo than nobody can have their lambo”.

It was not meant as patronizing. I saw serious flaws that breaks fundamental knowlege of economics. I did not tell you what to do, I gave suggestions. Economics is a very wide area and most parts fits together to make a complete picture. I believe it is hard to learn that bigger picture without a minimum of a bachelor or comparable in economics, that covers all important parts. The part about inflation and FRB to cause suffering is wrong.

The reason for suffering is wide and complex, some parts depends on institutions, technical/science innovations, population growth, law /anti corruption, and alot of other parts. If a country have competitive advantage and can produce relative high added value, that country gets relative higher BNP/salary growth compared to other countries, which gives inflation when “more money chase limited amount of goods” Even though inflation makes a fixed amount of money less worth, the relative high BNP/cap gives relative positive buying strength to a country, compared with a country with relative low BNP/cap. FRB makes it possible for example companies to grow by investing, they reallocate future income to allow to make investments today.

The topic is complex and that was just a scratch on the surface, there is alot more to cover.

This comment and some others should probably be put in off-topic by some of the mods. Please make reply in off-topic or DM.

tobbetj, I would ask that you don’t archive these comments. I argue that all of these responses can be used as a reminder when coming to a conclusion. I haven’t seen any kind of trolling so far. But mainly Psychology. Psychology determines outcomes. This you cannot deny. Also, I get that you want to keep a purely academic debate. But if you censor every comment that you don’t like than nothing new has been created!

And the point of me continuing to post is not to troll. Let me say that again my purpose is not to troll.


To add clarity…you deemed some of these posts as off topic. However consider what you did. You put two differing opinions on how things should be run. The individuals that believe in central planning are chiming into your debate. The individuals that believe in freedom are also chiming into your debate.

Option A) central planning <----opposing view point

Option B) free market <----opposing view point

You are getting the feedback that you requested. Not trying to beat a dead horse but you got exactly what you wanted. And notice what emotion it sparked! FEAR. Right? Fear implies the lack of feeling SAFE?

My reason for the SAFE network is probably completely opposite of what others want for it. The word SAFE to me means that I remain a private citizen with equal fundamental rights as other human beings. That is the right to privacy. This is a core concept that should be written into an Internet Constitution.

Central planning is a solution to the emotion of fear that the majority will be left behind. Right?

A Free market is a solution to the fear of an all oppressive entity that does the CENTRAL PLANNING.

I don’t understand what you hoped to achieve? These are view points. Or also opinions. If you wanted hard evidence that one is better than the other I argue that the pure evidence doesn’t truly exist. The polls will always be tilted in the direction of the ones who want ultimate power. It will always be tilted in their favor. I wish i knew what in the heck keeps that balance between total destructive Free Market forces vs All oppressive Central Planning. I’ve done my best to keep this thought on topic as you have presented Central Planning vs Free Market as the only two options. And yes they are absolutely 100% opinions of how things should be done.

No problem, I don’t think you är trolling, I think you have good intentions. Even if it is based on a view of academics I don’t have a problem if one or two comments is not on topic. This forums main purpose is to develop a decentralized internet and I want to cobtribute with the knowlege I have to help the projects/forums purpose. I think the frequency of topics with many off topic comments is regular and reminder is better than to save off -topic comments. I don’t care much if others are wrong or right. The main purpose for not discussing politics , economics (not related to topic) and so on is that it might get in the way of a solution or progress to this forums main goal and purpose. Important comments that might be beneficial for progress or solutions might be missed by people who visits a topic and see alot of off-topic comments.

1 Like