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

Jeez dude! WTF u make me sound like I have a bad intention or something WTF why did you put this part

Went from very respectable and logical to very hurtful and personal extremely quickly

1 Like

Content will come to SAFE because SAFE is SAFE… Specifically people don’t like to get DCMA takedown notices and the like…

Content consumes bandwidth and storage space. It is expensive to hand out for free- let alone reward.

Apps make the network more usable and appealing for everyone. We are only going to pay the apps that get used – So I don’t see the two as being anything near equal.

I do prefer an altcoin for all rewards – Because I think economic errors are a likely cause of SAFE failure and keeping it as simple as possible is the best chance of success.

1 Like

Thx Mr @happybeing this helped me with some perspective.

I as well am looking forward to solutions that may come about in the future

1 Like

You aren’t hand out anything for free. I’ll be paying good safecoin for uploading stuff to SAFE. Tanstafl.

Frankly I agree with your altcoin idea as it’s the most decentralized model that would be flexible enough to deal with all kinds of content producers and as I’ve mentioned people have been known to create their own personal altcoins.

If apps only get paid for if they get used why couldn’t you do the same for other forms of content? If a movie is watched or a picture viewed or a song listened to then it gets rewarded? Oh right because that would promote piracy and possibly be “illegal.” But you want to bet someone will write an app to do exactly that.

1 Like

Allow me to explain.

And I’m not arguing for the sake of arguing.

I am not against paying anyone.

Of course not. People should be paid in proportion for the value they provide.

But I as a consumer and user of both apps and content should be able to decide what I ascribe value to and what therefore I decide to pay for when I decide to either consume or use.

Now, I understand MaidSafe is saying the app devs will be paid for use but this seems overly simplistic to me.

I am happy to choose to exchange my safecoins for apps and content or other services that I actually want and use. But to say a network will manage this sounds a little to much like a sales pitch. As they say ‘if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is’.

Lets pull this apart a little more because I have a feeling many people have a similar view.

If I am happy to pay for what I want to use or consume why am I not happy for the network to pay app developers?

Firstly do I get to decide how much the network pays them and what is it even based on? Downloads, time spent using the app? This opens up a whole range issues with far more questions than there are answers.

Secondly when you look at examples of user-generated content it can get tricky. Take the 3 big sites Google, YouTube and Facebook. They all make money off of user generated content (so its a kind of partnership) but only two of them pay their users who create content. Facebook does not yet offer a shared revenue model and so what happens when you pay an app developer who builds and maintains a a good app, yet that app is useless without user generated content. It is essentially a user gen content type of application yet he or she does not share any of that with his or her users?

It would be a miracle if the network could do this fairly, but I have a suspicion this system is going to be full of unnecessary issues.

Why does MaidSafe need to burden itself by attempting to manage all of this? I say leave it up to the market and let the market decide because like in this example of content creators v app developers there are already people who are split down the middle.

I personally like the idea of tipping. If MaidSafe are going to go ahead with this model (they are) at least consider asking all app developers to allow for content tipping where network users and users of their apps can tip content providers. This also reduces the needs for ads,

Or ask the app developers to consider revenue sharing models.

As long as its a win/win for all involved.

Have mulled this over and over. Best most simple way of doing this (and it should be done, PtP I mean)

All they need to do is continue doing what they are doing with regard to developing a reward for app devs and then place the responsibility on the app developer to either offer shared revenue model or a tipping model for content creators via their app.

MS seem to like their natural systems philosophy and in this way the
reward system is similar to a tree. In a tree model the trunk does not
necessarily support every branch and leaf. The trunk supports large
branches, large branches support smaller branches and smaller branches
support leaves. The network rewards the app developers and the app
developers rewards or allow for the reward of content creator



Just to throw it out there, it’s not a matter of PtP being unworkable on the network, it’s a matter of why would you exert the mental energy to do make it work. Because if you take the base safenet, with safecoin being awarded to farmers for computation/bandwidth/data providing, you already have what you need to sell the app devs. Once you get the app devs onboard with effectively having a free back-end that can scale to the entire planet, you already have people creating the next facebook/google/etc. and from there, you already have mass adoption.

IIRC, the entire point behind App dev/PTP rewards is so that app/content producers can be paid for their work. A cursory google search however shows plenty of app devs and content producers are already making boatloads of money on the current internet, which doesn’t have a reward system built in. As such, both features are both unnecessary and will mainly serve to add possible weaknesses to the network that can be gamed or attacked.


I agree.


But if they are going to go ahead with it and they will at least add something into their terms of using the API that they should implement a tipping or revenue sharing model for content that way you’re not half-assing it and instead going balls to the walls and saying we are different, we support all app developers and all content creators.

This way you come across as a more complete system and you support all contributors.

On that note… anyone who wants to donate to this legendary form of comment content send beer money in form of MAIDSAFE coins to: 126fuQWQq3hBoRitMc73XginhqRtwgfdvz :stuck_out_tongue:


A content maker is not even on the same playing field as an app maker, If they was they would be world famous and would not need safe network.
An app developer has skills in demand and easy choose take a 200k a year job, An app developer will choose to use there time to create an app in rust because they believe in the success of safe network.
AS when safe network is released many core developers will most likely create apps, the ones whom put in the hard yards.
I think this is really insulting them, because they are here for the long run, and not some artist is here today and gone tomorrow.


No one is comparing the values of content producers versus app developers other than you my friend and if you asked most people myself included you would be told they are both valuable.

In fact in many many cases they compliment one another.

Think of some of the worlds largest sites and apps, most of them are user-generated content driven. Youtube, Facebook, Google, Linkedin, Reddit, Twitter… I could go on like this all day and as to your 200K a year app developer thoughts, maybe you should consider how many writers, musicians, video producers etc make millions from their websites and videos.

Both are valuable and both should be rewarded. The question is how you do it though and I believe MS should keep it simple.

All they need to do is continue doing what they are doing and then
place the responsibility on the app developer to either offer shared
revenue model or a tipping model.

MS seem to like their natural systems philosophy and in this way the
reward system is similar to a tree. In a tree model the trunk does not
necessarily support every branch and leaf. The trunk supports large
branches, large branches support smaller branches and smaller branches
support leaves. The network rewards the app developers and the app
developers reward or allow for the reward of content provider

If you want to have your say you should vote here:

1 Like

“There are no small parts only small people.”

Dude there are content providers who ARE world famous. And isn’t the SAFE network supposed to be the internet 2.0? Moreover many app developers are outright anonymous. Not all app developers are famous. Not all apps, even useful apps, garner tons of attention.

Good luck making awesome apps without artists and content providers to design graphics, sound and all the goodies for them. And I think the point here is that app developers ARE content producers.

And maybe we’ll get a set of core artists devoting art to the network. Or a PR group. Or bloggers or any other kind of content providers. Or have we forgotten about the need for marketing the network. Sure we can build SAFE but if no one knows about it what’s the point? And if it looks horrible and has a terrible UI again no one will use it. Artists that are here today and gone tomorrow? Well I’ll tell the bounty coders you have such contempt for their work.


I think you need to be able to veto or switch off the PtP otherwise you risk attention whoring like ads and sponsored media even with honest up voting. I can see a base line, but its much more important to be able to pay only if you want and exactly the amount that reflects your valuation of an offering. Consider it an advance on future works. I see how universal pay drives open access but also see that farming drives the advance of the physical network. Let us also remember that content liberation or free speech is fine and what industry calls piracy is an infinitesimal concern relative to taxation. Taxes are backed by nukes, piracy or whining about too much open access is only backed by bribery and parasitic middle men. If your content is worth something the public will support you its only the piracy clowns getting in the way that work to cut your take. They dont make money if they cant create content scarcity. Old pc game software was still thriving, even if only those who could afford it paid.


I think this is simple. The reason I think its simple is it seems there is a false dichotomy here. Just because the SAFE NETWORK doesn’t pay content creators doesn’t mean YOU CAN’T DEVELOP A PLATFORM on Safe to pay them.
This is also reflected in another false premise: i.e. that devs and content creators are equal. In a general sense of course this is true. But in regards to the Safe network it is definitely false. Devs are a SPECIAL KIND of content creator as far as the network is concerned. A video maker is the same as a document writer is the same as a webpage designer. All content creators. But without devs you have NOTHING.

You can have Youtube without crazy cute cat videos. But you CANNOT HAVE crazy cute cat videos without youtube (or some clone). Devs provide the youtube platform and I believe that since devs are an important part of the network, without them no apps, incentivizing their content creation is justifiable. Because by incentivizing their content creation you have the potential to exponentially increase content creation (and thus adoption) in general. No other class of content creators has that effect on the network. You make a viral video, but that doesn’t mean more videos will be made.

You make a killer game. Now more people are using the network. You make a youtube app. Now people have a place to upload their content. And because this is safe and not some monolithic giant corporate soul-sucking life-draining entity, YOU can create a content platform that properly incentivizes content creators. Right? You don’t clamor for the internet to pay pandora artists, pandora works that out with their artists. Safe is trying to become the next internet, it is a framework. Paying content producers is a level below the architectural design of Safe. App makers are an exception to this because Apps make up the network and incentivize its use and adoption. My $.02


The core dev team will be the app devs, I think it just insult to the dev team. Artist should sell there product as anyone else, I do not want hollywood crap, and the pop factory on the safe network sponging of my farms.
All these people is just copy each other and clone the same old rubbish.
The fact is no one pirates of a small private doco team, and most people are more then happy to pay for product.
What an opportunity for an artist to uploads there ware for pennies and being there forever without being taken down. What an opportunity for an artist but this is not good enough and want a bigger slice of the pie.

1 Like

Kind of what I am saying.

The network does not need to pay them.

All the network needs to do is have the developers agree to certain terms when using the API and one of those crucial terms is you allow content creators to earn safecoin via you app either by a shared revenue model or a tipping or something else. Super simple.


Clearly devs are of value. Clearly you’d choose to donate to them, indeed probably donate heavily. That’s not the point. The point is value is subjective. In point of fact devs ARE content creators. Code IS content. You’re arguing that content that support the network is of greater value and therefore people owe the network a percentage. This is the same ideology as taxation. It’s the farmer’s pie in the first place not the content producer be they artist or developer.

Well god forbid we bruise someone’s ego. I believe David Irvine himself has acknowledge that coders aren’t special and are just another kind of content producers and just one facet of the community. Whether you want “hollywood crap” or not it’ll likely be uploaded to the SAFE network regardless like anything else. And there are many who would argue that “hollywood crap” deserves to be paid for just like devs. So as I’ve pointed out it’s a matter of subjective value. If we’re going to subsidize one kind of content production we should subsidize all kinds of content production. And since we can’t agree on value… well there is that altcoin idea.

1 Like

I have 20k safe coin to spend on the network ready and waiting to pay for good content and products and services.
The reason I do not pay for content on the internet often is I do not want to use PayPal or credit cards over international borders.
I would be happy to pay for rust lessons or 3d model classes on the safe network.
I am not happy paying for a cutie kitten video, that my child stumbled upon.
I think 10% is not enough for an app developer, I would say give an app dev 20% and get some real world changing apps.

The farmer will come from the crypto- currency world there will be unimaginable people wanting to farm safe coin, these people will be the consumers of the network and want to pay for content.

As of just yesterday I spent a day trying to find good information on rust coding, I looked on you tube and found very little, if network was up and running I easy pay $20 dollars for a lesson or two in this area in safe coin.
What people want today is the knowledge, people want to know how to paint or how to 3d mold, or how to create a professional video.
A martial artist sell his craft by teaching the art and if he is lucky he may get a Hollywood deal.

go have look on youtube and see what video’s get million of views because of being famous, I do not want to fund these people because of sheep effect.
I prefer to fund a teacher, for education for my child, or doctor on call because my child is sick in the middle of the night.
I want to fund the apps whom give these people abilty to be as service.
My main point I want the farming awards to pay for this in the future. my farming effort will go back straight in artist pocket, or go back to the farmer for what i up load.


Yes but a teacher or doctor or tutorial creator IS a content creator and only proves my point. Value is subjective. Maybe instead of likes or subscribers people should buy someone’s altcoin.

Would the sheeple be willing to PAY for their cat videos? I doubt it. And if they are well then that’s their choice. People are stupid enough to eat at McDonalds and shop at Walmart after all.

1 Like

So you disagree that devs represent a unique value to the safe network? Is it your contention that content creators are equal to devs? I think I can disprove this by simple way of extrapolation. Its clear that the core devs are central to the network, I think we can agree on that. But according to your reasoning. Core devs are no more important than regular devs (code is code, after all, and code is just content). Furthering the logic then, core devs must be no more valuable than content creators as well. But that is CLEARLY FALSE. We don’t even HAVE any content creators, but if we did (we technically do as they exist everywhere on the net), they would have no network to upload to. So by that simple exercise I declare illogical the idea that all content creators are created equal, they can’t be. The safe network is more valuable than the content creators because without it there is no where else for them to upload to with the guarantees that safe brings. This is, again, simple logic.

It only requires taking the abstraction one step further to prove, in my mind, the logic of paying devs. Because without them, again, no content creators can upload. If you disagree, I would like you to challenge/repudiate/defeat this simple logic. Not all content crators are created equal because some content creators need other content creators in order to create, that list is in order:

  1. Core devs
  2. devs
  3. creators

In this case, the safe network does not want to leave the incentivization (is that a word?) up to the good will of user donations. Rather, they want to incentivize it directly. Given the obvious importance of devs it makes sense to do so. I want to reiterate this in order to be clear: it is my contention that the idea that all content creators are equal is FALSE, and thus the argument that ‘if you pay devs you must pay creators’ is also false.


Ah I think I see the problem: Value is subjective.
Value is NOT subjective here, I contend. Value is subjective at the ‘content creator’ level, because not everyone likes Jimmy Fallon or Jazz. BUT EVERYONE ON SAFE NEEDS APPS. No one will want to use safe as Internet 2.0 without useful applications. THAT IS NOT SUBJECTIVE VALUE. That is OBJECTIVE value, i.e. everyone agrees objectively that this is important (having apps) and is willing to finance it. Not everyone agrees that my tennis instructional video is useful, so they shouldn’t pay for it. Not everyone agrees that my word document is useful so they shouldn’t pay for it. BUT EVERYONE AGREES that we need apps. Right?

Its kind of like roads. I don’t pay for your car or your gas bill. But I do pay for the road you drive on. Why? Because (well aside from the gun in my back) I agree that roads are useful an necessary. So we all share the cost. What it appears to me that you’re doing is equating the usefulness of roads to the usefulness of cars. Cars are very useful, but you’re not going anywhere without a road.

1 Like

So if maid safe team said yes will do this with the network, and my child is watching barbie you tube types of clips on the safe network that are in the millions of views, they should be paid as well as on the youtube…
I rather pay for content of my choosing from farming rewards then being forced to pay for viral barbie clips or a baby making a funny face…