Gets are not free

Here is some logic why free gets should work. Basic economics tells us that nothing is free of cost. Free gets are no exception. When users request gets from the network, farmers pay for them with the resources they donate. Farmers are then rewarded with farming attempts that pay them Safecoin. This incentivizes farmers to keep providing gets to the users of the network. Gets are not free. Gets are a costly service that farmers are willing to provide, because farmers are incentivized with the farming attempt mechanism.

3 Likes

Get is the cost of bandwidth which is already paid for, corporate ISP / WISP / meshnet ISP.

1 Like

This cost is transferred to the farmer, by the ISP charging the farming with an internet bill.

Another added cost of a get is the storage of that data while it waits to be got.

2 Likes

The cost is applied to the user, and the farmer. To order to use bandwidth, you need to pay the internet provider.

Another hidden cost of a get is the storage of that data while it waits to be got.

That’s irrelevant.

How is storage of the data irrelevant?

Good point, the user and the farmer both pay the bandwidth cost. Although upload bandwidth is usually at a premium.

One variable I forgot in this equation is the initial put cost.

User pays for the put. This is safe 101.

1 Like

Users pay for the put, but will this cover the cost to the farmer to continue to store the data over time?

I’m arguing that put and get costs/rewards are intertwined. And that the incentives for both have to be balanced.

I’m arguing that put and get costs/rewards are intertwined. And that the incentives for both have to be balanced.

Congrats, you just answered your own question. Farmers get additional safecoin if the data has been gotten. This compensate the cost for using upload bandwidth, and possibility profits from it.

Users pay for the put, but will this cover the cost to the farmer to continue to store the data over time?

Irrelevant. Safecoin is valued based on the resources, and bandwidth.

1 Like

It’s not a good point. The cost of PUT is not allocated directly to the vaults’ owners (multiple, because of replicas).
It is redistributed indirectly through a form of lottery, but even so, the cost is averaged out based on the condition of the network, etc. You can’t set your price for PUT based on your cost or other considerations.

It won’t, and IMO the way this is really handled is that new entrants (with higher capacity disks) pick up the capacity from those vaults who gave up and went offline. Then this is paid for through GET's later, but again at a price that is valid at the time GET's happen, so it’s a very indirect and complex process. I think everyone on this forum is underestimating this fact.

And the resources come from where - the Good Samaritans?
Of course not, they come from people who dump unused capacity on the SAFE space market.
If that’s the case (no professional farmers), there’s no problem as long as the workload isn’t too annoying (e.g. a constant outgoing SAFE traffic of 500 KB/s I would at the moment consider annoying to me, but everyone has their own criteria), as no particular ROI is expected the system can function. (This isn’t a statement on the “value” of Safecoin, which is a layer above these underlying economic relationships).

3 Likes