Currently on the web, to serve data to each user has some very small cost. Safe is inverting this by paying the creator for each GET. Is that sustainable?
That’s not quite true — The creator has to PUT first – Thus they pay – They get paid 10 percent of the GET… (The other 90 percent go to the farmers) Gradually the refund becomes earnings…
We also ought to remember that because of the Caching, SAFE’s architecture makes the cost of delivering data quite a bit less than the current web’s cost.
I would think the market will adjust the price of this to be sustainable. The magic 90-10 percentages are just a guess from what has been said in the past. Once the network is alive and we can see what is working and what isn’t perhaps that will be changed…
I don’t support the idea of all content being paid – applications that make the Network more useful ought to be paid, but pirate movies and the like really ought not… I think there should be Alternative tokens that are used for paying artists etc…
Is that really the case? Define “small”
Lol… I was just about to press “like” until this
I am all for the piratecoin paying you for that — Just SAFEcoin ought to be first and foremost about making SAFE work.
@Artiscience I meant the cost to run a server. Very roughly, somewhere from .005 to .10 per GB.
On SAFE Net, those storing personal or otherwise unpopular data, will be subsidizing the cost of the biggest bandwidth sites. I get this discourages spam, but it does so at an enormous cost via inflation and PUT fees for average users.
I see the point, but I think the subsidy is going to be so small as to be unnoticed, or may be more than compensated for by other factors - the reduced cost of storage for example. There are other important benefits too, such as:
- It means that anyone, even of very little means, can create website / web app or upload their own video / song etc to their own space, and if it grows they get all the rewards. No need to buy bandwidth, or host it elsewhere on someone else’s terms - unless you want to.
Otherwise, to create the next facebook, you need lots of money, which means profit has to be the motive, and that those with existing capital will again dominate everyone else. The same with publishing your own songs, it’s just not practical to monetise on your own.
On SAFE anyone could build an app, or share their own song, and if it takes off - is suddenly used by millions, or 100s of millions - it all happens without them needing to invest a penny in servers, or have to use a service like YouTube who then control the economics.
Not see the “enormous” anywhere.
Regardless the number of creators, of GET’s or PUT’s, the farmers will receive always 10 times more safecoins that the creators. That means that the increase in the cost of PUT for the average user, in relation to the old system, would be at most 10%.
But that is not true because the lower price of public chunks (25%) is removed. As these bandwidth sites are mostly public data, they will pay more for their PUTs.
it is difficult to calculate, but the PUT’s cost difference, with the previous system, will be very small.
Are you saying that the dev stops making money from the app if the app becomes popular (and its data gets cached)?
That would be an interesting concept.
I believe that is the way it works. (last I heard) Farmers don’t get paid when their stuff gets cached either.
I know the farmers don’t get paid for non-work (when they don’t deliver data because its’ cached), but if devs don’t get paid for cached GETs, that seems unexpected.
If that is true, then the more popular some app is, the less
SAFE it earns.
Top apps would be essentially free because they would always be cached.
I’m concerned about this, too. It would break the distribution potential.
From the initial network description, I was wanting to develop games and software for the network, and distribute them to end-users for free, while getting paid for the popularity of the software via the network.
All public data will give 10%? That’s pretty interesting. But if the farming reward is only based on the PUT income, then that’s a too low income. What is the rationale for such low farming reward?
EDIT: I was wrong. The farming reward is decoupled from the PUT income. Good!
“As safecoin gets more valuable, the desire to get it through farming
will increase, which should provide plenty of incentive to provide
excess resources to the network, in exchange for safecoin.” – Exchange price vs. resource price - #2 by fergish
I think it was only the apps that get the 10% The thought was that open source software could be self supporting without having to do a ton of fund raising. If you wrote code, and people used it, it added value to the network and you would be rewarded by the network.
Some folks support the idea of all public data or some public data being paid… I don’t like that idea too much as medical research ought to be rewarded at a different rate than porn… I think those should be supported by their own currencies - Which should be fairly easy to build on SAFE…
[quote=“jreighley, post:14, topic:5637”]I don’t like that idea too much as medical research ought to be rewarded at a different rate than porn
Please do not attempt to introduce personal morality into economics.
Every MB should be treated the same.
Of all the awesome little magical nuggets promised by the SAFE network, this has to be one of the coolest I think.
I’m correcting you here. It’s 10% for the creator and still 100% for the farmers. The farmers don’t lose 10%.
So then in case the app and its data is popular and cached, does the uploader (aka creator) make his cut or not?
From the cache no. It’s to prevent the creator to flood GETs from it’s one created content.
Is then what I said above correct: popular apps won’t earn any revenue?
Also if I may add another thing - kind of anti-stuffing anti-attack: to prevent an app vendor from doing well, I just need to start his app using a clean (no client cache) client every 1-2 hours (so that his cache doesn’t expire).