If SAFE won't pay content makers, it shouldn't pay App makers

You haven’t explained why, or more importantly how, a cat video or any other content going viral will affect Safecoin price. You’ve said that the two are linked in a vague sense, but I have no idea in what sense or what relationship you think they have. You’ve certainly not demonstrated that the relationship is a problem.

I’m not saying there is no relationship between what happens on the network and the price of Safecoin. Obvs.

You said a cat video going viral would, because of PtP, be a significant factor in Safecoin price. I don’t understand what you are talking about there. Yes there is some relationship, but the significance is only in your presentation: what would you rather have your currency backed by, US Gov or cat videos? Well, I think cat videos might prove rather attractive to some given where we are and what’s coming. :slightly_smiling:

But the weight of your argument seems mostly tied up in presentation (cat videos versus the most powerful military on the planet), rather than anything we can discuss, such as the economics of PtP and how particular content.

Perhaps instead you could have said, what would you rather back your currency: an article by a genius who has cured cancer using SAFE network’s dis-intermediation of scientific papers onto a free access for everyone network, or another who has cracked fusion power using the same burst of released human knowledge and experience… etc.?

Hmm, Safecoin, a currency backed by the unleashed potential and creativity of all mankind. Has a ring to it huh? As an investor, how do you feel about about having a bite of that cake @TungSvard? :slightly_smiling:

1 Like

The cat video comment did it’s job. It at least caught your attention to my argument. It’s an example. It’s an example of content who’s value is subjective and determined by the consumer.

And you just supported my point with the statement below:

Do you see how subjective content is? Content is valued differently by different people. Content is used differently by different people. You may think the genius who wrote the article that cured cancer is valuable (and I do too) but plenty of folks who don’t care and rather watch PewDewPie. Who decides? You, me? No, consumers do. And you want this subjectivity to be the basis of a currency?

“Rather than anything we can discuss?” Being paid twice for content which undermines safecoin which undermines the security of the SAFE network is not worthy of PtP discussion?

And safecoin won’t be these things if it wasn’t tied to content and apps? Of course it will.

My concern and focus is for the security and survival of the SAFE system.

Ironically, your support for PtP is for the purpose of making content creators money over security the system. Not only that, but having them get paid twice – once by the consumer and once by the network.

How is this part a given?

I made that distinction here in a previous post: “…who sell their apps and content to consumer will get paid twice.” Obviously, those who do not choose to sell to consumers but only choose to earn safecoin is their choice but also their loss in additional potential revenue.

My source is from David Irvine here:

Quote please I have never said or implied that. If anything I supply considered reasoning for why that is not the case.

The commercial world sees this.

Anyone on a commission works this way, paid a retainer and a commission of the sales.

In the USA I hear that waiters have to receive tips to get enough money to live. Paid by the establishment a minimum wage and receive tips from the customers according to the quality of their service. Paid twice for the same work, and from 2 sources for each payment.

This argument is not shown to destroy anything where it has been used for ages. See the 2 simple examples above.

And your statement rather says that the concern is for the profit that the coin will make and not the actual security of the network. The network remains secure, and you see more content providers are attracted to it which in turn sees more people use it, becomes more inclusive, more movement of the coin, the coin is more active more puts occur the network hums along giving out coin and getting it back. The only security threatened, IF AT ALL, is the backpockets of a few

.[quote=“TungSvard, post:160, topic:5827”]
My source is from David Irvine here:

And ignore HOW these figures fit in to it. If you do not read the logic and considered reasoning given then its just a debate of words and preferences. Seriously, can you not understand the reasoning why its not 20% of all the networks payments, which does not contradict David in the least.

Also you should read the post he responded to, and that it has to fit in to the network as a whole, not take the case he explained as if its the whole.

Do you serious think that EVERY get will be a PtP and a PtD?? surely you can see that it is not.

Am I noticing more and more that some think the security of the network/ecosystem is in the price the coin. The arguments here would make it appear so.

1 Like

@TungSvard you are arguing by changing your argument each time I address it, and you are never responding to the points I make to challenge your points. There’s no point in such a conversation. Suffice to say I don’t find your arguments convincing.


@TungSvard you make really good points really poorly. Let me fix some of these for you (disclaimer - all quotes should be considered solely my point of view, and are accurate as far as the scope of my own personal view reaches):

The Network is concerned about the operating costs of itself. Anything that does not aid it’s own income is not to be rewarded.

This goes for you too @dyamanaka

Pray tell - why should they earn income. “Should” is a very strong word - akin to “must”. Don’t they give no direct economic advancement to the Network?

If the users pay the app by the quantity of their usage, then it is a free market - in more senses of the phrase than normally apply. See the PUT Incentive Model above.

When your slogan is fixed, it sounds like soviet-era wall street propaganda bullsh*t to me.

To clarify: it’s not backed by content, it’s utilized and maybe even valued by content - but the value of Coins, as you have stated before, is not representational of the health of the Network or it’s Coin. It’s backed by Network space and operations made accessible by apps creating the ability to PUT and subsequently GET the content.

BTW - if you wanted to PUT data to, or GET data from the Network without an app, you would have to edit the source code itself. Else you could create a script using the API, but isn’t that in itself an app?!?!?!



When your slogan is fixed, it sounds like soviet-era wall street propaganda bullsh*t to me.

It wasn’t presented as my slogan, but as a counter point to the equally flimsy “a currency backed by cat videos”. Both are valid, but only together are they useful. Each reveals the lack of useful substance in the other, and together they point to the need to expand our understanding.

I find the arguments about subjectivity and “real” value flawed so far. In my opinion value emerges as a kind of collective coherence of a group, in this case all of us, expressed through each of our individual subjective actions such as watching cat videos, liking posts, visiting URLs, tweeting, voting in polls etc., and SAFEnetwork provides us with an opportunity to measure this in a way that while not perfect, might at least be far more robust than current models of production and distribution.

To accurately quantify value is impossible because we all do so with different priorities (cat videos versus cancer cures), but all are in the mix. So instead we compromise. Monetary value is one such “measure”, and works quite well, but as we know incentives distortion in how value is perceived and presented in the current system.

There is no perfect way to decide the value of content, but in the present system, it is co-opted by people who seek to control the creation and distribution because, by making monetary value our measure, we create an incentive for this to happen. For profit.

I therefore understand the wish to keep the network “clean” in this respect, and I don’t disagree. It is a valid concern. I don’t want to jeopardize the network by including in it things that put it at significant risk. However, let’s not turn away from things that might be game changing in a positive sense, until we have throughly examined those risks and can decide whether or not they are worth taking. That’s why I’m asking for those who feel the risks are too great to elaborate them - I’m hardly the best person to do that, when my focus is on the potential benefits. I’ve elaborated those, and nobody has challenged the benefits. So I think its the risks that need understanding at this point.

I merely don’t accept that “there are risks” alone is sufficient argument for not trying PtP/PtD when for me, there is an opportunity to design an alternative system of rewards, that (as with a monetary system) won’t perfectly reflect value, but might do so adequately at the same time as removing the mechanisms that are currently causing very damaging distortions.

We have media of all kinds manipulating consumption by a small elite who decide what will be offered, promoted, advertised for their benefit, while disregarding the impact this has in so many other respects. Not least, excluding much of human creativity from view, to create scarcity, push up price, and consume every drop of human attention possible.

We should certainly consider whether PtP/PtD is an accurate reflection of value, but we should not compare it with an ideal. We should compare it vwith how well the current system functions in this - and other - respects. Let’s compare the whole with the whole, and let’s make sure we are fully aware of how the current system operates and the impact it has.


An altcoin does not need to measure monetary value as has been exemplified by systems like followmyvote or how bitshares is using the blockchain to create a decentralized stock exchange or whatever. What alt coins do is allow us to tokenize values. Now yes once one does tokenize a value odds are it can and will be traded for monetary value but that’s true of most anything. People trade their honor, their self esteem, their integrity, their votes, favors and all manner of things already. To sum up an increase in VALUE = increase in PROFIT. VALUE = PROFIT. Now subjectively what one values and considers profitable is up for debate, that’s where the alt coins and free market come in. An increase in money is not always an increase in profit. If it was then people would never buy anything.

If one sets up a charity one is still doing it for profit, the profit is just not their profit. Or it could be argued they receive emotional and spiritual profit in the form of knowing they are helping others. But as far as an exchange of value that could be tokenized and traded there is still profit being made. We need to stop thinking about people profiting as a bad thing and start thinking about what we are honoring and valuing as a society and as individuals so we can start designing apps and alt coins to reflect those values. People will gravitate to what makes them feel good and betters their life experience be that a sandwich, a stack of bills, or giving someone a gift to make them happy.

And this is were we disagree. I define values very specifically, and the more specific the better. Value is subjective and must be defined specifically by whoever or whatever is observing it. You do the same thing in math or in programming: You define your variables. You define your values.

CollectiveValue = Cat_Videos + Likes + visted_URLs + tweets + votes + misc

then it won’t be the same as

SubjectiveValue1 = Total_Safecoin + Total_Bitcoin + Total_Profits


SubjectiveValue2 = People_Helped_Daily + Charitable_Works + Honorable_Deeds


SubjectiveValue3 = Hotties_Banged + Hottie_Contact_Info + Porn_Collected + Porn_Made


SubjectiveValue4 = Cat_Videos + Lolcats + Regular_Cat_videos + Regular_Cat_Pics + Funny_Cat_Pics_and_Videos

I mean I could go on but you get the point. Value = honor + love + charity? value = money + wealth + power? Value = family + community + friends? Value is like a variable it’s what we define it as that makes the difference. And that doesn’t change whether it’s on a collective or individual level. Value isn’t defined by consensus. It’s defined by the subjective perception of the individual which can then be aggregated by the consensus but if that initial definition isn’t taken into account… well it’s likely you’ll run into syntax errors.


We’re at cross purposes here. I’m not saying anything that contradicts what you wrote about defining values and concensus. In fact while I wrote that values emerge from concensus, I also mentioned that reflecting on those values each of us would disagree because the concensus will not fit our particular perspective. At the same time, but less relevant, there are so called “universal” or “human” values etc. where groups do tend to be able to agree.

My point is that you can’t talk about a system that reflects value accurately, yet we live within an economic model for creative production and distribution that does that very poorly, and that SAFEnetwork is IMO an opportunity to try and provide an alternative that improves upon this - and which will be very much in tune with the other aims of the network. Otherwise, why would David have suggested it?

Anyway, my points weren’t directed towards you. I’m still hoping that those who see flaws in PtP/PtD will take the trouble to elaborate the reasoning behind these and attempt to quantify, or at least explain the logic of this, because so far they are largely opinion that hides what I think are assumptions, and I’d like to be able to test all that. If it all stands up, then we have something to stand up side-by-side with the benefits, and make our judgement against. My reason for entering into the debate was not simply to argue one side - my mind is not made up though I hope we can achieve something big here. So I wanted to keep the debate going and explore at greater depth.

1 Like



@smacz, If you’re going to summon me, at least spell my name @dyamanaka correctly so the forum notifies me. I’m joking, just so you know. :smile:

My response, which you pulled from another thread, asked why “should” APPS earn from PUTS but can’t earn from GETS? Aren’t APPS useful doing both? Unfortunately, consumer spending only comes from PUT requests. That’s why I initially agreed with the (Put Incentive Model).

I think tapping into consumer spending regardless of PUT or GET might be the most practical solution. A Basic Walletmark serves this purpose by pulling the APP or CONTENT owner’s wallet address. Based on the APP payment options (tip, donate, like, buy, subscribe), the consumer controls “if” and “how” much they give to that address.

This whole back and forth is really about implementation. Unfortunately, we are at an impasse about the Network participating in the equation. On the one hand, I would like to test it and see what is possible. On the other hand, I want beta release yesterday.

I’ve spent enough time on PtP, PtD threads, with very little headway. I’m going to focus on other issues where I can be more useful.


Because PUTS are used by the network to give value to safecoin. You trade safecoin in exchange for space on the network and spend that space using PUTS. Ergo PUTS cost safecoin. GETS on the other hand give value to farming. The more GETS being circulated the more GET requests that are issued to farmers which in turn mean more safecoin is rewarded to them. Farmers RELY on GETs being free because that’s what encourages their revenue stream and keeps the network functioning properly. If GETS cost then you’re essentially trying to get water to run uphill. What you’re going to spend safecoin, which relies on people downloading stuff and resources being devoted to the network, to download more stuff AS WELL as upload?

You need to be more specific.

Are they useful to the user? Yes. But the user isn’t the one rewarding them with the PUT Incentive Model.

Are they useful to the Network? No. They cost resources without producing any income. From my write-up:


  1. Not all APPs need to PUT

No, they don’t. The ones that don’t, however, aren’t generating revenue for the network, and therefore the network shouldn’t take on the burden of subsidizing those APPs.

So what can the devs do for APPs that don’t PUT? Well, there is always the payment directly from the users to the APP Wallet. (such as micro-payments or subscription services) There are also more complex business models that are being employed today in the FOSS industry. These are still valid forms of monetization.

Also, keep in mind that not all PUTs have to be in the form of public content. PUTs can be initiated for configuration files, or messages. There are all types of PUTs, and different APPs will utilize space on the network differently.

  1. Lurkers make up 90% of the existing Internet

And they are not contributing therefore need not be rewarded, or reward those who facilitate them [= apps/app devs] although they are certainly free to lurk. When they decide to contribute they can do so in the most advantageous way possible.

The risk is that value given by the Network to content producers cannot be subjective - as you have indicated that it must be - being that the Network is content-agnostic.

@dyamanaka (got it right this time!) has introduced pay per “like” as a response to this argument - however I personally don’t believe that it solves the problem for other reasons (elaborated in the related thread). However, he has recognized this shortcoming in PtP as significant enough to address it. Whereas you have not put forth a plan to reduce this communization of the Network were it to implement PtP.

1 Like

@smacz we haven’t been in conversation so in bit sure what the risk is you are talking about here:

The risk is that value given by the Network to content producers cannot be subjective - as you have indicated that it must be - being that the Network is content-agnostic.

I’ve heard “it will be gamed” but as I have said, no convincing argument as to how. I don’t understand the risk you mean above (because I haven’t been following all threads here) so can you spell it out (or point me to where this is explained)? Thanks.

I can’t read this many posts, so please forgive me if I’m stating something that’s already obvious to everybody.

If PtP will be implemented, most payment will not be for “actual” content (as we humans think of content: movies, music, books, etc), but for services related to actual content. I know: “[citation needed]” :smile_cat:

There are classes of services (e.g. search engines) that will need to post a lot of data, but it will be for the benefit of the community, not the benefit of the owner. These services, however important, will simply not be possible without offsetting for their expenses. At the same time, getting payment would be an incentive to provide quality content.

[EDIT] I didn’t notice this thread was the one with the App makers argument. About that, I don’t think it’s possible. Apps and the Launcher are just code running on your computer: you have full control over them, sometimes theoretically, at other times readily (e.g. for the open-source Launcher). So, if a payment is not enforced by the network that serves the content, that payment is not going to be made. I don’t believe the network differentiate between content that is “App code” and content that is “cat video,” so that’s where I’m saying the idea is dead. Please correct me if I’m completely off track.

1 Like

Quote from my 10th post in this thread. I’m sure it’s been reflected elsewhere as well.

1 Like