Initial price for upload

Thank you for the answer David! I’m sorry I didn’t clarify better.

The initial price is clearly irrelevant. What matters is how much the network will pay extra through inflation - this became clear in the topic I am quoting - filecoin pays extra and subsidizes with inflation, what will be our initial inflation? Obviously, there must be one to reach 4.3 billion safecoins…

The Safe network has two prices for storing data - what the user pays to the network and what the network pays to the farmer. My question is what the network will pays the farmer initially.

1 Like

Ah I see. We have no final decision there yet, but likely it will pay out something like 2X the reward or similar. We want all coins in circulation quickly, but we cannot yet define clearly “quickly”. When they are ll out there then they are in the hands of people and not a network wallet, so even bad sections cannot mint new coins. etc.


This is something I’ve always wondered and have failed to address. When I first started reading here I just assumed Safe would adjust its fluctuating token cost based on dollars. Maybe that’s completely wrong but the general population will look at it the same way and want to compare apples to apples.

That’s why I would think, oh maybe there will be some network oracle that has a price feed that informs the store cost. It is a solution but likely one that causes more problems than it solves?


I still live in a world where there will literally never be all coins in the circulations. I thought we will get in 3-7 years in the sustainable point when there will be around 3.7B (85%) coins in circulation. Have I missed something important?


That sounds like quite fast to me :slight_smile:
With x2 farming reward it will take several years I guess.

Anyway here were put lot of thoughts: RFC 57: Safecoin Revised

1 Like

This depends on how quickly the Network reacts to shifts in Safecoin market price as well as Network supply and demand.

Per David’s response:

While the mechanism that will deliver this high degree of sensitivity is TBD, the target for quick responsiveness seems clear.

Yes, the common POV shared on this forum over the years has been that it would take years before a volume bordering on max supply hits the market. I think a rapid inflation rate would be a dangerous proposition.


In my head I still imagine some kind of orderbook auction type with free floating for farmers to join or leave the network. A free-float market where there is no need for an algorithm. Where a user for example sets a high/low cost limit for storage/GB and then the client random buys storage, 100MB each time, within choosen range, until either low/high limit reached and then the client would be asked to choose new limits.

To set a low/high limit would allow for price fluctuations, the data to be scattered across various nodes and to reject evil actors from setting price to 0 for evil purposes of gathering data or destroying the network.

Don’t know if a free floating solution is only a dream or would possible. The hypothetical model is very basic and excludes probably alot of important scenarios, for example but excluded, not only choosing price but also reliability. latency and such.

Sia works on this principle. I was a farmer there for 1-2 years, I even give my storage for free. Unfortunately, their software was so buggy that it constantly broke when there was a power outage (just then they were building a subway next to my apartment and the power went out several times a month)


I’ve been thinking about this. Even if all money were minted, wouldn’t a bad section always have something to steal? For instance, it could steal the section wallet since the section disburses payments to participant nodes only after they relocate to another section. Is the idea that if the bad section does that then it’ll be caught because those who didn’t get paid would report it? Wouldn’t it be possible to likewise catch a section that misuses newly minted coins because it wouldn’t be able to pay nodes that did work?


We have an option where with DBC for instance a client pays directly the nodes the data will be stored on. It changes a few things, Adults IP will be exposed etc. but also the network only transmits the payments, they could be transmitted via a usb drive etc.

This stuff is really a focus for me right now, have the most secure network we can but give it no authority to mutate any (humans) data or data that can harm humans.

It’s all just me and a few others pondering right now, but all this is well within reach if DBC works well. The only gap left is the section wallets for the initial issue of coins and I am positive we can come up with some neat solution there to complete the circle.


Very interesting indeed. Thanks for sharing @dirvine

1 Like

PS: with that design change, you’d have to find another mechanism to ensure the nodes do keep and serve data entrusted to them. I really liked the ingenious simplicity of paying the node only after it has fulfilled its duties to the section and relocated to another. I’m sure you and the team have considerations like these well under control though. More power to your elbows


My current thinking is pay as you go. So a node who takes and runs is doing so for a few chunks, if he stays he gets paid more. If he leaves then others will get paid for all the new chunks. I recon it’s fair and balanced. So no wait penalty and we can show nodes wealth increase gradually and not in steps. So from a UX it might lead to nodes being more sticky.

As I say all thoughts right now, but with the tools we have right now these things are all possible. I see much more as we release. Just in case anyone reading thinks this slows launch, it does not, it’s typical last minute Engineering tweaks as we launch. I know some folk get scared when new angles appear, but this is absolutely to be expected. It’s using tools we know are proven to try a few improvements. In saying that DBC is not there, but if it was these considerations become real.


You guys have made the right technical call over and over. So I’m sure you’re having these considerations for very good reason. Thanks for the reassurance nevertheless, and I think having an imperfect version out to build upon would be a tremendous starting point.

Probably my bias talking and I stand to be corrected, but I suspect there’ll need to be some mechanism whether wait to get paid or deposit that can be forfeited otherwise nodes may not behave when it comes to serving back the data especially in the long term and with old/unpopular data.

EDIT: thinking more about it, it could work if it’s very difficult to get into position to start earning in the first place. It that case, the node might not want to go through the hassle. So that could serve as the penalty.


@dirvine I am questioning this as well. My initial reaction was that it would potentially tank the price of the network token short term and limit its speculative value long term. Having more scarcity would be preferred I would think to give a better return to long time initial investors and the network would just adjust prices down the decimals. Also wondering if this affects long term growth? Idk this came out of the blue to me not that I’m closed off to ideas or change but this could definitely use some more explanation and consideration to instill more confidence in such a move.


No worries @Nigel always glad to hear thoughts and this is a community who looks deeply, so I am grateful.

It’s all brainstorming at this time. IF we focus on pure security then mint and distribute them all is best, if we consider only economics (if we can ever tell how that goes) then perhaps as slow as possible.

I often hear new terms in tech these days, like scarcity, inflation and much more, it’s all interesting but I even think there that base assumptions can and should be tested. i.e. what if the thing is not scarece, what really happens, beyond the headline scarcity is essential for value increase etc.

Also what if there was no inflation, but instead deflation? So the opposite of inflation? (i.e. not scarce so deflationary due to increased supply, then scarcity as supply is capped and so on?)

At this brainstorming session, I am all ears to all ideas and that has to be good. It’s not my decision alone in any case, so I would like some freedom to explore. Deflationary currency can be a good thing (no hoarding or that terrible phrase hodl) maybe that is better for the transfer of products and services?

All I mean is there seems no economic model that is the one but many ideas and I think the bitcoin space has fixed ideas with sometimes invalid terminology.

I am no economist and am keen to listen/learn and more, but I am also sceptical of all the economic experts who currently are not trillionairs :slight_smile:


I agree with this concern. I think “quickly” is probably still on the order of decades here. This is because there are other serious implications besides tanking price and long term investors who supported the team through the hard times not being rewarded. Namely, all of the supply would go to a lucky few who heard about the network early enough. I doubt the team wants that based on everything they’ve stated so far. For the whole world to benefit, the supply should be released slowly enough that everyone hears about it and is able to join and take a fair (based on work) piece of this future world resource.

But clarification would be good to be sure. In the highly unlikely event that we’re indeed talking about very fast release of all the coins (months to few years scale), one way to reward the early investors might be to increase their share, e.g., Maidsafe’s goes from 5% to 10% and ICO investors’ goes from 10% to 20%, leaving 70% to be released at once for everyone else (still better distribution than most other networks). This is highly unlikely to be the case / needed though, as it would be counter to everything else stated so far.


//still brainstorming

Not all mind you. Only initial supply, it recirculates forever. So clients pay - nodes provide the service. If humankind keep creating data then this continues.

So the initial supply get released to a few lucky early adopters (bit like bitcoin) and then circulate. So perhaps not as bad as you think there? (I do see your point though)


Me too in yours and the teams willingness to respond to such probing questions and in general considering the will of the community quite often.

Well that is either human psychology or it’s just so deeply engrained in our thinking through economics courses in schools that we think so but I’m pretty sure it’s human psychology. Just the basic idea of supply/demand. Something is scarce it has value because you can’t just make it and he who holds it has power whereas if it’s in high supply it becomes less meaningful. I am only pointing out the obvious to lead to this, the network is changing the power dynamic by allowing almost anyone to run a vault and earn this scarce asset but if it isn’t scarce then it changes the psychology a lot I think and makes contribution to the network less advantageous which is negative to the network overall. So not only is there a chance to perturb long time investors but network contribution and adoption could be affected. At least in the scenarios I’m running in my head.

Don’t get me wrong, I love the questioning of the status quo but the network relies on human behavior/psychology to serve humanity so we need to ensure the two are in symbiosis.

Please don’t take this as a stop sign to your brainstorming but as a dog ear on the map as you travel through this thought experiment.