I know it's borderline neurotic, but still


And, of course, thanks @neo for working on these. I’m not able to do what you did, so I respect that you can.

Assuming that others here also find your revised logo files to be correct and complete, hopefully they can be updated on the MaidSafe Brand Assets page—and perhaps also added to the main MaidSafe repo.


Yes thanks for reminding me. This is of course the rough unfinished version, but easy to forget if not reminded.[quote=“SilasB, post:41, topic:11134”]
And, of course, thanks @neo for working on these.

Your welcome :wink: BUT it was from my own self interest to clean up the files. I wanted to use them for 3D models incorporating the symbols.[quote=“SilasB, post:41, topic:11134”]
Assuming that others here also find your revised logo files to be correct and complete, hopefully they can be updated on the MaidSafe Brand Assets page—and perhaps also added to the main MaidSafe repo.

So who would in charge of that @frabrunelle?[quote=“SilasB, post:40, topic:11134”]
The proportions and lines all look fine,

Actually while not really visible the gaps around the inside portions of the symbol have changed to be of equal size (approx 3% decrease on the middle gap and 4% increase on the other two). To my viewing equal sized gaps is a better look even though you cannot see the difference. But do others think so too?

Oh and I built a spreadsheet to calculate the points I put into the polygon. And both halves are identical because I use the exact same polygon.


@SilasB @BambooGarden @JBishop @frabrunelle and any other interested people in getting this safecoin symbol correct

After examining the symbol and @frabrunelle finding the earliest known image of it for me. The best I can decide is the absolute relationships in the symbol.

There is 2 parameters that are “plucked from thin air

  • The width (thickness) of the outer Bars
  • The gap width for the section cutout on the side (I use the vertical height along the outside edge)

Shown below are 4 images that vary the GAP width. The images are 200 units high and the GAP height varies from 13 units to 19

The current image has about 17 units and the earliest had about 14 units.

Please choose the best looking and comment PLEASE.

And this overlap image may help to highlight the differences in the GAP

And this overlap of the GAP at 17 units BUT the outer bars change in size from 19 units to 22 units


Here is an incomplete design specs image and using gap of 17.042 & bar width of 19.291 which is what the current image uses.

Use this image if you are unsure of what the gap width is about or the bar width is about, or want to know the relationships in the image


hey neo, nice work man. you’re taking this to the next level.

I would say the following:

  1. overall shape should be a perfect hexagon (probably is the case already)
  2. width of outer and inner bars should be the same
  3. gap-size should be the same as the width of the bars

realize that you can vary the gap size not only by changing the thickness of the inner bars,
but also by shortening the fragment of the outer frame that approaches the gap.

once we have perfect versions of the network logo, the safecoin logo and the maidsafe triangle
(maybe I’ll have a go at the triangle over the weekend…) I suggest we approach the MaidSafe guys
again to replace the old ones…
I just want to avoid bothering them with every small iteration, they have enough on their plate already… let’s make it final this time :wink:


See the design image, not only a perfect hexagon, but most of the points are on a radial arms of the hexagon. This is how the original design (& yours were)

Which of the 4 look best for you. #1 has the inward bar the closest to outer bars. But the GAP would need to be even smaller at nearly 11 units in order to achieve the equality of bar width. An then the inner block is going to be larger anyhow. At 11 units it is a very small cutout gap.

Honestly I do not think it is reasonable to have the inward bar the same width as the outer bars.[quote=“BambooGarden, post:45, topic:11134”]
gap-size should be the same as the width of the bars

Then that is #4 image with the GAP the closest to the outer bars widths. BUT then the inner bar is at the smallest.

The issue with the inward bar is the design of the inner points being at set points to create the basic structure. The inward bar has never been the same (or even close) width as the other bars in any version

For me the image #1 is at the extreme end and #4 is also extreme the other way.

That is my opinion. We could have a poll if you think its worth it. But it doesn’t seem to be attracting much attention from the other members in the forum.


yeah, I dont think a poll would be worth it. To me, most important thing is to have everything
symmetric and even. So I’m down with any of your versions. How about using that version with
gap of 17.042 & bar width of 19.291 that you have posted above? Looks neat to me! :wink:


That is my choice at the moment too. It is the gap you had in the “corrected” version that s currently in the assets. Also the outer bars are the same as that one.

The main difference is removing the extra points that were creating errors/jagged lines. Also the main change is ensuring the inner points are at the apparent design positions.

And if I am not mistaken those who have invested their time/energies are happy with the “final” fixup

I have been talking with @frabrunelle and he is happy with that version too. But I wanted to ensure that those who have put effort into this fixing “project” are happy with the change.


So if no one has issue with using that 17.042/19.291 version then I will finalise it and get on with fixing the logo/coin in the other assets. That is tomorrow’s job, too late now. :wink:


While you were sleeping, my comment: going about it this way may be a sensible approach when not doing it by hand but graphic design should always be more about how it looks. Trust your eyes.

Like when coming up with a new typeface. Or even in other fields, for instance building design: Golden Age-facades here in Amsterdam are leaning forward slightly, not because hoisting stolen colonial produce for storage in the upper floors was easier that way or because it kept the rain out or just because the construction sagged through the ages, no it was built that way to counteract perspective distortion any time another envious citizen looked at your building. Proved by the masonry pattern in the walls near the forefront and because they did not do it to the back of the building. Same views were dictating fiddling with the marble in even more ancient building as written up here.

So not being a designer I’d say 4 has seen its dentist recently, 2 needs a video inspection by a sewer expert and 3, maybe a classy designer would not touch it with a pole however long but since it’s there already and white does not look like it is going to lose from blue, opt for this one?


The 17.042/19.291 version is the one I liked the most too.

I wasn’t able to enlarge the design specs image, but (considering my sleep deprivation at the moment) maybe I’m just overlooking something.

Regardless, really impressive work and attention to detail with all of this.


@frabrunelle told me the way he does it to open the image using “view image” in the browser popup menu and zoom in. Yes it is a pain. The other way is to download the image and open in a image viewer.

Yea, while I would normally agree, that step was already done and we have the basic design, then fixed, then fixed again by graphics programs before I started. Its because its a basic geometric design that one can do it “by hand”.

My “by hand” approach is tiding it up and finishing it off. Rather like the Masons making sure each block lined up with the ones beside it to make the slightly leaning forward facade the way the designer wanted

Its the design sizing that was chosen as the safecoin symbol the community wanted (AFAIK before my time).

Also #3 (and #2) is approximately (because of the errors to fix) the same as the previous version which people were happy with.

My design image is basically laying out the mathematical relationships in the original design. While it was was done with a design program, it seems the designer basically used shapes with relationships between each other.

Going with the crowd (of only 5) hey :grin:

Loved you analogies :slight_smile:[quote=“SilasB, post:51, topic:11134”]
Regardless, really impressive work and attention to detail with all of this.

What you get when an engineer works on a design :sunglasses: But thanks for the compliment.


Well I have just finished. Thought people here might like to see what I’ve done and comment on any problems they see

I made the network_mark and safecoin_mark to 1000 units basic sizing. So network_mark has a height of 1100 and safecoin_mark has 2000 height, Widths are according to shape

Here are the five images. What do you think

This is the mono. White on white doesn’t show

Image above - if you click on it then the enlarged image shows


Looks good, nice work @neo :+1:


Here is a fun one with a little extra. Take a close look :slight_smile:


Take a close look :slight_smile:

Says in there, “Creator: David Irvine”. Safecoin symbol was his design? Or is it: MaidSafe and the new network and, and, and originated from the Man :slight_smile:

Worried because I was on record saying: maybe a classy designer would not touch it with a pole however long :sunglasses:


It was a bit of fun. The creator was really to acknowledge him as creating the MAID/SAFE network concept. I just made made node as a circle with the coin symbol in it. If I was to make something to be used then the safecoin symbol would be much smaller in each node and have symbols for storage/files/chunks. Then have chunks traveling along the connectors.

Even would think of having each node of the network symbol having a network symbol inside of it to represent the enormous nature of the network. The beauty of it is that it would not make the svg file much bigger since svg allows reusing of template sections.


OK @frabrunelle and myself need some help here.

I have at the request of @frabrunelle created the images in 100 base unit sizing. So we have now the images in 1000 and 100 base units.

The question that needs answering is which sizing is best to use for the assets and official images. Obviously the images have to also be finally agreed upon by MAIDSAFE and the community. Basically I think we have community support (at least by those who are interested)

Please compare the two sizes and please comment if any problems with either sizing. I will post a mini poll under the post with the 2 sizes so we can get an idea of like/problems

Try it in different browsers zooming the page in and out. Try it in your favourite program. And so on

#100 base unit sizing

mono colour (white), you need to view image with a different colour backgroud

#1000 base units

mono colour (white) - use discourse “enlarge” to view it


Please vote here. You can pick 2 answers. The reason for allowing 2 is to allow you to indicate which size is best AND if that size was the only one that worked for you. If both sizes worked for you then please only select one answer. Thank you

  • 100 Base Units is the Best
  • 100 Base Units was the only one that worked
  • 1000 Base Units is the Best
  • 1000 Base Units was the only one that worked
  • 100 & 1000 Both work and I don’t care which you use
  • Neither Worked - go back to the drawing board and don’t give up your day job :slight_smile:

0 voters


It looks like it’s mainly the “safecoin_RVG.svg” logo that is too big. It’s so big that even when I zoom out at 25%, it still doesn’t fit in my browser window.

For “safenetwork_logo.svg”, I have to zoom out to 50% to see all of it in my browser window.

The other logos are mostly fine. They fit horizontally and I have to either scroll or zoom out a bit to see them fully.

I’m thinking it could make sense to use the 100 base units version of “safecoin_RGB.svg”. And use the 1000 base units versions for the rest.