Farming = Content Delivery

One question I wished to pose: is farming content delivery; or is farming paid for for storage.

I think of how Netflix earns millions but in the end is fundamentally serving movies that are a couple gigabytes at a time; and therefore, 1GB of delivered content is worth way more than the cost to store it.

Can anyone else chime in let us know what they think?



Do you mean a stream (rental) as compared to a download (purchase)? It would seem the same work for the network and hence equal reward on the face of it.

Pay for bit quality in terms of the quality of the security, communication and persistence, incentivise this through farming and nothing else.

If you think of where SAFE must go in the security arms race, which is toward full end user ownership and control of the hardware of the network then it seems obvious the network should incentivize economically its own physical growth and capacity along every measurable dimension.

It should pay less for unsecure resources running over cable TV and telco lines as this undermines the future of the network and is not sustainable or desireable.

It should pay more for fully end user owned and controlled secure open/free hardware and transmission and more for mesh, and more for lower latency on mesh and more for free space optical and more fore secure bandwidth.
More for secure compute cycles an storage etc.

Is this farming secure content delivery? The word “content” itself is a barrier because its marketer jargon with the usual assumptions built in. “Communication” might be a better term even in the case of SAFE software operating code. So it might be better in farming terms to think of the communication and persistence of secure bits where ever increasing levels of bit security are incentivized.

I don’t think it makes sense to try to farm copyrighted material, or mess with bridges or try to enforce so called content producer payment schemes. Empower always the end users. SAFE will never be competitive moneywise for publisher types that are used to lock in games.


Warren, you’ve gone into bot mode lately…any chance of a re-boot :wink:

Sorry for being a verbose bot. I am not claiming a good or even consistent grasp of the material, but the material is changing.

I missed the nuance in the initial question. The money power is in the duplication or lack of it and transmission or the streaming. That must be what the telcos think too. And what does rental mean? That kind of stuff continues on SAFE? Even with a SAFE OS you get a adobe style no cut and or paste and no screen capture because the streamer or down loader gets a higher level of control over your software and hardware than you?

I am glad that this farming for content now seems to be a question rather than a given. There was a time when it seemed to beat out the model I preferred and one I think @frabrunelle also liked.

@chrisfostertv How do you Farm for content? You pay by views, by second of attention etc? Why should the network track that or tax it? Seems centralized almost like Nielsen and even if DAO would invite attack. Authorities would want to find the people who controlled these centralized levers or who could adjust it, even if impractical could spawn witch hunts. Popcorn time getting a donation model is different.

Trying to pay for the quality and security of network resources and transmission contributions may be no less invasive and harder but it seems more consistent and we already do it. Is SAFE going to be a publisher or publisher taxer? Is SAFE a subscription of sorts? I thought the bitcoin networks were built out through tying the ability to mine to bringing in more hardware. It seems that in most cases SAFE will be bring your own hardware but track mainly storage initially. In the beginning preexisting hardware will fuel this. So I see that. After a while any SAFE fork will have to payoff the value of the new resources it brings in unless it will stick to older stuff.

What am I missing? A network of cheap solar mesh nodes might pay for itself and its replacement in some stable future, but beyond that why pay more than the open access voluntary after-the-fact valuation for a version of content? It costs to store but not to transmit (save for the proposed spam cancel fee in some email apps) but aside from the early start up period does SAFE continue with that farming tax to support developers? If I remember David Irvine wants that overhead very small and shrinking with time.

The same for SAFE coin. Its value will be in it being a potentially superior method of exchange and less as an investment.

1 Like

I took it as a technical question, but it was a little ambiguous.

1 Like

@chrisfostertv @Warren thanks for your reply; What I am doing is trying to evaluate that when a safe coin is farmed; the farming aspect took place because a specific chunk was delivered;

If a person is storing 160 gigabytes and only 16 gigabytes are consumed; therefore earnings are because of serving 16 gigabytes; and not solely on the fact that 160 gigabytes were stored;

Though, it would require that a person store 160 gigabytes in order to have had those 16 gigabytes to deliver.

Then, the question is that in fact are we being rewarded in farming for delivering 16 gigabytes of content; or for storing 160 gigabytes of data?



Farming = Content Delivery.

Farming Rate = Storage Amount.

The reason is because Safecoin is rewarded from GETS… but the rate of payout is affected by the total amount of chunks stored compared to the Network Average. Ideally, a vault should store up to 120% of the network average AND deliver as many GET requests as possible.


That is a light bulb. Like a credit and a debit, its the left and right side of a ledger.

Is the system extensible in a way that will allow it to bias toward more secure and cord cutting network pieces?

If Popcorn time type SAFE variants can do privately what Apple Music does for less with more going to the actual artists then its the killer app and SAFE starts to take over quickly. Something like this would presumably serve all content types like the Google Play store. Apple music on a family basis is pretty lean can be as low as just a couple dollar a month for a family of six users for all but the Beatles.

@dallyshalla If we look at it from a technical perspective, most nodes will provide Chunks for free. If there are 5 hops before the person who did a GET actually get it’s Chunk, only 1 of them is payed (Vault where Chunk was stored) the others just did free routing and and caching(!!). So one node (Vault) had the Chunk, now 5 others stored it as well in cache and number 6 got it’s Chunk because he did a GET.

Now let’s look from an economic perspective. Farmers won’t provide that much space/online time when the rewards are low. So they want a minimum amount SAFEcoin for Farming. What’s that minimum amount? It probably includes electricity, routing, caching, storing, hardware etc. So from an economic perspective, all that cost one money will be in the price for a SAFEcoin.

So one is payed for delivering Chunks. Not storing. And the price for delivering a Chunk will probably be 5 tot 15 times the actual cost for delivering that 1 Chunk. Because for each Chunk you Farm, you’ve probably routed (downloaded and uploaded) 6 tot 10 of them for free (not coming from your Vault).


We should also note that people can’t pick and choose what data is stored or delivered, short of nuking your node and letting it refill (costing reputation/safecoin). This should make it hard to game the system to only store data with little demand for retrieval.

1 Like

Note that the farming reward amount should be equal to amounts paid to put (and some inflation to distribute coins). Therefore the farming reward should self adjust. If only 1 of 5 chunk requests actually hit the farmers, the reward may be 5 times what would be paid in a cache free network.

Moreover, all participating nodes will have a similar mixture of cache vs non-cache requests. Therefore, it should all balance out.

@dallyshalla This is an interesting thought experiment, but I don’t think it has any substance.

Safecoin is paid at the GET. Okay, but what is it paid FOR?

It’s paid for participating in the network as a full node, including storing, caching, monitoring, verifying, securing, etc, There is no way to differentiate which is being rewarded, because to get paid the node has to do it all. If it fails in any particular, its ability to earn is lessened.

In the future there may be additional resource contributions which can be rewarded separately, such as computation, connection bandwidth, etc., but those will have to be separately metered as contribution will not be uniform. In other words, some people will have the resources and some won’t, whereas initially everyone has the same basic resources in order to participate, and those with more efficient/effective resource will be paid a bit better.

I’m guessing infrastructure contributions will have to have a separate token, and perhaps computation.

The point is that the rate of earning safecoin fluctuates on the whole package of the Vault’s participation, so the answer to “What is being paid for?” can only be “Participating”.


I want to just add that @dallyshalla s discussion point is worth exploring as a Get request is foreseen to become more explicit to accomodate publishers, core developers and app developers too. This is complementary to the majority being rewarded to the nodes on the network.


Yah, the point is that based on some calculating I’ve conducted pegs the price to deliver content at around $10.

So this is quite inexpensive; also suggests that the delivery reward could increase (via the price of safe coin).

This has been more than a thought experiment. I’ve been analyzing pricing of storage costs; and what the payment is for delivering content.

Thanks for each of your replies.

1 Like

Sorry, didn’t mean to imply your activities were a thought experiment, just our end of it, based on the data we had.

Would love to see your breakdowns whenever you can share them. We KNOW you’re cooking up good stuff.

I’m not surprised that safecoin has a lot of upward potential based on what the network should deliver, but it’s good to know you’re starting to be able to put some more solid calculations in place.


That’s a good idea to post the model and; see if I missed something.

Hi Ben. Good to see you come up for air. :grinning:

Not clear on what you mean by Get requests being more “explicit to accommodate publisher, core developers and app developers. This is complementary to the majority being rewarded to the nodes on the network.”

We talking a different category of Gets?

If it’s too high level dev talk, say so and I’ll back off. But you mentioned it. :wink:

He’s talking about GET rewards not only being for farmers, but also for those in the roles he mentioned. The well known “popular content” reward, but also for core SAFE updates and apps. Core devs for example will put one of their SafeCoin addresses in new SAFE updates, and for every GET of that update there’s a chance they’ll earn a SafeCoin.


A money tree that fruits all year round…nice. I was visioning a system like bounties but perpetual you say? (until it’s replaced with something even better) I can see the intense competition that will bring.