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

Don’t want a blind dumb market that can be captured by speculators either.

We had 3 relatively good Kenysian decades which the neoliberals have since replaced with a record of destruction. Now we have fake libertarians who want to use free maket religion to ironically argue for coercion and coercive results for most people!

It seems we want systems we can trust because they are trustless or are designed to not to need our trust. Systems designed to be secure because they can’t be gamed. Even right side economist Milton Friedman argued for replacing Fed interst rate setting with a formula to get beyond animal spirits or rigging to get at predictability. Getting the fine tuning right will be important but if speculators are allowed to manipulate the network it will be another top down system planned for their benefit and to the eventual detriment of all else.

1 Like

I have not given psychology any thought in this topic, I don’t know if it feels relevant.

I feel a little confused, do you confuse me with the one who created the topic?

Is psychology relevant for creating an optimal system that will benefit the growth, health and sustainability of the network, I don’t know if it feels relevant too me.

This raises alarm for me. I hear similar arguments alot lately, when individuals is challenged by someone with stronger arguments and have more knowledge. Similar arguments is often used trying to manipulate to win an argument, either consciously or unconsciously. It is, if not specified under certain conditions, logical incorrect and it is demonstrated by the examples below.

Example 1:
Not A or B is right: That does not exclude that A is either better/much better, worse/ much worse or equal to B.

What makes A or B a better solution even if none are right/correct depends on what the conditions are, what is the goal and purpose that A or B is intended to solve.

Example 1: A algorithm that controls store cost can be very hard to develop, a supply/demand market might be optimal because it does not have to rely on a algorithm, but it needs some conditions, that the market is hard to manipulate and that farmers can join or leave without restrictions.

Example 2:
A scenario where farmers can’t join or leave without restrictions, in that case a central algortihm might be a better option/optimal, or a foundation that governs store cost.

I hope we don’t discuss if all farmers should be paid equal or different depending on different contribution to the network.
I believe that David Irvine and the Maidsafe team will try to find a solution that is optimal for a successful network and that if someone makes alot of profit or not is of less importance.

Ah now we are getting somewhere. If you truly have experience in this subject matter than I am border line or just straight demanding that you innovate. That you bring your experience to the table. Not implement the same thing. Surely there was a moment in time that this exact thought crossed your mind “man if we had a chance to do it all over again i would do xyz. the outcome would be so much better.”. That’s pretty much it. Otherwise we don’t need to redo this tech. We should leave it the way it is. There is no reason PERIOD, to go through all this trouble to fix things we wished were done differently 30 years ago. If it is just going to be the same outcome. I still remember that feeling of horror i had from listening to Bill Clinton over the radio. He believed that the internet needed to be regulated. I was pretty young too. These were the times when a wealthy upper middle class family in the U.S. would have an ISDN line. I knew enough to know that the internet was screwed. Fast forward to 2019. Still have that same feeling of horror. Nobody bothered to setup a base line.

I almost went on a rant about the PoV coin. But I will leave that for another thread. And yes I don’t trust the data to be collected in an unbiased way. Yes i don’t trust the data to then be distributed equally among all the parties that make choices. The choices that effect the rest.

Also, why are you just now hearing similar arguments? Like this isn’t a new fad. A new Tha IN topic. Or Tha Hip topic. This has been going on for generations. Maybe just put a different way? When data was distributed to the masses in the United States via the news paper you could expect similar responses. Maybe something like, “you don’t get all the facts”. Or maybe this? “They don’t report the whole story”. There is something to be said if this is a recurring theme spanning generations that have a mistrust in the ruling class. Hate to break it to ya.

1 Like

I am not wrong, I am correct and I explained how I am correct. You did not address my points, you are evading them.

Wealth in society makes a difference towards the suffering of people. Capitalism in the 19th and early 20th century pulled masses of humanity out of poverty and ended a huge amount of suffering.

Fiat counterfeiting by central banks and the “bubble blowing” led by central banks and accomplished through local bank FRB is FRAUD that leads to “bubble popping” and a game of musical chairs that leaves masses of people in poverty, initiating a wave of mass suffering … and so long as people are BLIND to this they’ll remain entrapped within it.

Present an argument against my thesis if you can.

1 Like

Capitalism was just a tech or an approach. Was it capitalism or was it the tech improving or both that pulled people out of poverty? Is it capitalism right now pulling people out of poverty in communist China? Even if we can fix the banks we’re never going to have capitalism again because we can’t put the necessity back in work. But it doesn’t mean we have to have a lower standard of living or quality of life. There are other ways.

I think the tech development is closely related to the ability of individual parties to risk their own capital in pursuit of individual profit (eg. capitalism). Therefore I think it was both - the tech and the capitalism that is pulling people out of poverty.


We may differ on our definition of capitalism. I think of it as not involving the State. So it’s is purely saving to invest in better and better tech. that then allows you (your family or business) improve profit margins - which inevitably means producing more for less … hence more abundance and lower prices.

The first part of this video (with the fisherman) explains my view/definition of capitalism quite well:

Going on a tangent however, I’d like to point out that without REAL interest rates (not central bank set) it’s incredibly hard for people to save anything - which is the source of the ‘consumer economy’ where people don’t save but spend - even on cheap stuff - because the time-value of money has been destroyed by central banks that can create money for next to zero cost. This interest rate manipulation also has allowed financial institutions and corporations to borrow money for well below the real market value of money - effectively taking advantage of the central banks money-for-nothing system … this leads to mal-investment (money managers take high risks because payback is so easy) … high risks lead to high losses and the corporate and State redistribution of assets into one pipe-dream or another and too often these investments fail and those assets are lost (taken from the economy where they would have been put to better use if they’d been used more conservatively) … but with the fake interest rates, risk aversion vanishes.

Sorry for the tangent - but I believe that one needs to understand this core perversion of the economy in order to not blame capitalism for all the mal-investment and horrible mis-allocation of resources that has resulted from it. It is the State that allows central banks to manipulate interest rates and it does so because it’s expedient - instead of raising taxes, they allow the central banks to buy government bonds (with their fake money) thus keeping the government bond market stable so the government can issue as much debt as it wishes without raising taxes - the latter being something incredibly unpopular with voters.


I think it would make sense to avoid using vague and emotionally charged words like “capitalism, socialism, left, right, conservative, liberal” etc. when discussing complex subjects, or any subjects at all really. I view oversimplified language like that the same way I view marketing talk.

1 Like

How would you describe a system that uses capital to build/extend the wealth of society?

IMO, the State has made the term capitalism an emotionally charged word by twisting it’s meaning and blaming it for things it’s not really responsible for … so I don’t see why I should avoid using it in favor of another word that describes the same processes as then the State will just take my new word and twist it around too. At some point you have to take a stand with your language, or it will become meaningless.

1 Like

I agree, but some words really are pretty meaningless. And somebody is always going to try to twist words to avoid real, concrete questions. I try making that difficult for the “twisters” by avoiding at least the obvious ones. Too many debates turn into just squabbles over words.

Even the expression “the wealth of society” is vague, and I’m not aware of any system that does not use capital to do “that”. But capital has been used in different ways to affect different details in different societies. I don’t think any system (of government) can be described using just one word that would meaningfully distinguish it from all other systems. Societies and governments are too complex for that.

Wow, this conversation has strayed quite far from the PUT price :thinking:

The idea was to separate two concerns:

  • the economics of the network, for which a free market would be better (“less broken”) than a set formula: on the client side, with arbitrary strategies, any of which could fail without bringing the whole network down (this last point being the rationale)
  • enforcing the rules, such as punishing vaults that lie or that aren’t responsive, for which a “central government” (the core network code) with clear lines drawn is ideal

Please note that having a free market does not mean there couldn’t be rules to limit what would constitute a valid bid at any given moment.


The main flaw in your argument (and that of others in this thread) is the presumption that an algorithmic approach is equivalent to a form of central planning, which it is not. The algorithmic approach is a better means to ensure and maintain a free market, since it allows the network to actively participate. It is fully inclusive of all market participants.


This makes no sense, sorry. If there’s one algorithm then there is nothing free about the price so let me challenge you to explain how it isn’t justified to call that central planning. And no, the network is not “an” active participant but literally the only participant with a voice, except… that still isn’t true since vault owners will always be able to vote on the price in at least one way: by no longer participating if they don’t like it and this doesn’t depend on the mechanics of how that price was set.

1 Like

He network decides how much reward to give for gets and how much to price the puts

Safecoin from the other side you can send so there are markets where the price of safecoin will be free market as in the market will decide the price of safecoin.

So if you get too low safecoin related yo its proce then you go to the market and sell you safecoin higher. If you get enough safecoin and you want to sell them right away you sell cheaper.

If all people are not satisfied by the reward all people will raise the price of safecoin by not selling their reward cheap, so the safecoin price goes up so the rewards are bigger in dollars.

You just want a network that will give more safecoin to people that will game the system with strategies!!! Why?

Edit: a get is a get and should be rewarded the same!!!

1 Like

No, I want a network that won’t randomly fail due to a naive implementation of an idealistic method for setting the price. Here, look:

Moreover, as I’ve already explained about a billion times, if “gaming the system” is the method for setting the price, that’s automatically a defense against… gaming the system! That’s how free markets work, actually. The role of the government is to protect the society, that is, as we don’t have harmful externalities as in for example heavy industries, to punish those who act in malicious ways, such as lying about the chunks they have.

1 Like

Understand that its a balancing algo so that rewards amount that is given per get is in relation to the cost of puts that are incoming

Yes, that is very nice. What are the guarantees that it will work? How do you ensure that everything was taken into account? That is, how do you guarantee that there aren’t any factors that you forgot to think about? That you didn’t miss something crucial, something that can make the whole thing simply not work? It’s ignoring the possibility of unknown unknowns that lead to overconfidence in “balancing algos” and other clever ideas.

I’m simply advocating for removing a component from the core that is very risky to have there. Setting the price would be better on a more distributed, p2p, “free market” basis.

1 Like

Its a system that was engineered and all features are implemented for a reason, you know everything, and make a balancing from puts to gets.

What you dont understand is that this is just circulating safecoin not dollars. Its just to store data and offer data.

The price itself is free market, safecoin will be traded in markets.

1 Like

In complex nonlinear systems that’s demonstrably incorrect.
As long as you can’t recognize that, I can’t say much more.
When we have complex feedback loops, nothing is simple.

1 Like

Man just wow, we talk about a computer network that is based on ones and zeros not for something abstract…