Final few points about PtP

great topic for tomorrow SATURDAY 14TH NOVEMBER - ANTS vi - meet up Open invite LIFE IS PEOPLE - ANTS vi - meet up SATURDAY 14TH NOVEMBER

LIFE IS PEOPLE - ANTS meet up will be live link up with - SAFEnetwork Decentralization and Cryptocurrency meet up in Ruidoso New mexico USA

This meeting is open to all - feel free to post any topics of you would like to discuss - will post the LIFE IS PEOPLE ANTS vi hangout link later

Proposed topics for discussion

Keys under the doormat. SAFEnetwork is safe secure etc but point of weakness = password to connect to SAFEnetwork

Meritocracy and the SAFEnetwork

Will post the link to hangout on Saturday

ANTS meet up in various time zones

Feel free to raise any topics to discuss
contact @optictopic for details of location in Ruidoso


1 Like

One of the many things that inspires me as an artist regarding the SAFEnetwork is ability unleash human potential for more regarding n99 -­technical-white-paper/

Lol but what do you think about what he said, @we_advance

1 Like

An issue with this is someone who produces art for showing on safesites. If a safesite had 20 of these on a page then the user is expected to keep track of 20 addresses. What method to pay for them (its not an APP but browser plugin)? This is one reason the pay on get by the network was introduced, As a way to change the current economic (middleman etc) model, a way to pay producers without requiring users to do additional things. To ensure the producers got at least something for their efforts and cost of uploading the art.


That’s the crucial point. I don’t think people havr to present a full fledged equation, but so far I have seen 0 solutions how payment is handled. (in terms of what and where’s the payment cealing). Saying.that it is calculated dynamically is simply not enough.

For farmers, rewards can be measured in actual work for sustaining the network. Content does not sustain the network technically - if it is good it may sustain the network’s prestige, but how ist that measured? And how is a voting system (which I, like @riddim, see as the only solution) prevented from exploits? Idea have been presented that afford users to pay per like - how is the payment been calculated autonomously (since the network is agnostic to the real world value of its currency)? Without proper answers to these questions I don’t see any way how this discussion makes any progress.


RE: Walletmarks

This is a big topic to be discussed further, and my idea thereof was an immutable (in every sense of the word) piece of metadata that pointed to a wallet where a viewer may contribute to the content creator directly. This is why it must be implemented at the network level, although PtP must not be.

P.S. I have opened a new thread to discuss the implementation of APPs rewarding content here.

P.P.S. One like wasn’t enough for @Artiscience’s post above. You hit the nail on the head.


Expect… no. But it would be a better internet if they did. And we can aim for better :smiley:.


I have to say, I’ve not seen agreement on this one. There’s a lot of voices on either side (and I myself am for this to be a network level feature with then optional ‘tipping’ as an app).

It costs nothing for this to be implemented in the network and creates a base reward level and an increase in SAFE circulation. Even if it’s not enough for creators to survive on, it’s a good basis and a level for a tipping app to go off. (Pay creators at 1.5x network level).


Let me get this straight then, firstly who’s paying for this? If it’s the farmers, then why are the farmers subsidising business? Doesn’t sound like a better way of doing things - just the same old way of doing things in society. As you said:

The farmers are not.

Its part of the PUT costs. A small percentage of the PUT costs will be paying for various parts of the network functioning. Such as Messaging, Proposed PtP, All the Various Node’s operations, etc in addition to Data Storage.

The Output coins are to the Farmers at a network determined rate, and proposed PtP. Proposed PtP rate is network determined and does not reduce farming rate in any way.

Also the proposed PtP is designed to help (in a partial way) artists to shed the business model of “Agents & media fat cats”


I see…sort of… :smile:
I’m obviously confused somewhere, but I’m reading your reply as

I’ve probably mixed something up - this happens with techie stuff, this is just the nub of my questioning…farmers provide the space to store data, so get rewarded by Network…I’m not getting why “messaging apps” etc need rewarding?

Nope it is as i Wrote

the farmers are paid coin for providing storage, bandwidth, cpu to run the vaults.

The network Does many things other than storing data and the Put costs pay for those. If PtP is introduced as David proposed then Put costs will also eventually include a small percentage that goes to cover those costs.

I am looking at payments/receipts the way the network does. It receives payment. In its “black box” it does many functions for which there is only one payment, that is PUT costs. Then looked at the outputs which is payment for farming and if introduced payment for PtP incentives.

Just trying to point out that when people pay for PUTs they are paying the network, not people. And when people provide vault resources they are paid by the network at a rate determined by the network. & potentially for providing public content that people will be drawn to. Its not you directly paying for farmers.

In essence the network pays out of its reserve in coins, if coins become scarce then payments are less often. And when people PUT data the network receives coins which it recycles back into its reserve. The counter factor is that wehn coin is scarce then the $$ value of each coin will be expected to rise due to scarcity.


Neo, could you explain how in your opinion taking a “small percentage” (really doesn’t matter whether it’s small or big) from the PUT cost is not the same as taking money from what the farmers can effectively receive? That doesn’t make any sense to me economically. There is only one PUT amount and if it’s distributed to farmers AND content providers/app creators then the cut of farmers is lower no matter how often people say its not taken from the farmer’s reward.

If a reward is “added” to the “regular” farmer reward then price of space on SAFE goes up (lower value of SAFEcoin per Gb), while farmers still receive the same amount as they receive without the additional cost - their reward then is relatively lower. This way farmers subsidize content creators. What part do I miss?

1 Like

If you attempt to see it as a 1:1 input -> output (time wise) then of course what you say would be the case. Really it is a lot more complex than that. Of course in the greater scheme of things over the life of SAFE the farmers would as a collective receive less actual coin if PtP is implemented. But when looking at it in a period of time then the network is not adjusting the farming rate because of the PtP outputs.

When you consider that the system is more

then you see that only when the coin becomes relatively scarce that the farmers are getting less in the lottery (a small %age) but the network is still calculating the farming rate the same. But at that time the farmers are expected to be getting the same $$ rate because scarce coin is expected to be worth more $$ each.

In effect the farmers may never see any reduction $$ wise collectively depending on how the scarcity affects the $$ rate.

Basically the coin becomes scarcer at a marginally earlier time, but the $$ value is expected to increase as scarcity occurs. Of course if the expected behaviour due to scarcity does not occur then some of the basic premises explained by David did not occur.

1 Like

These points are in contradiction to one another. You can’t argue that people give away their content for free on one hand, then assert that it will collapse if people aren’t paid.

I am sure paying for content will cause more people to consider creating it. Whether anyone would pay more to use a network which socialised these costs in debatable and puts the whole project at risk.

However, providing a more frictionless way to pay content creators may help. This is what I am backing.


You cannot simply argue with the undistributed systemic Safecoins - those will be delivered in ~20 years, you need to take the global picture into account. If you look at the network macroeconomically, you have to take into account its foundations, that is: PUT cost = farmer reward + uploader/app reward.

People confuse the role of farmers and uploaders/apps. Farmers contribute to the maintenance of the network, uploaders/apps contribute to useability. Those are two different kinds of work and they have to be evaluated and rewarded differently.


It’s feasible that ptp will encourage more PUTS, therefore more money coming in for the farmers so they could/would earn more in fact.


Arguably, farmers will only be able to charge what the market can bare, relative to their operating costs. Competition will see to this.

Therefore, the content reward would have to be on top of this. That is, farmers will charge as much as they can regardless - whether PUTs cost more to cover content or not will not affect farming rates.

However, if the PUT cost then becomes too high, people won’t pay it. The network would become too expensive for users, due to the subsidies for content creators. This would make the whole project economically unviable, when there are cheaper (equivalent) alternatives (which would include safe net forks, ofc).

Since PtP necessitates higher PUT prices, basic economic reasoning suggests it will actually lead to fewer PUTs. The extra cost is a certainty, the required level of popularity to earn that back (and then some, hopefully) is not.


By such mechanisms as giving it to app makers? Let’s put it another way, “Who’s end does the reward come from?” Where would the “reward” otherwise go? If not paying apps or content creation at Network level - where would that money go?