Is Safe Inflation real?

[DavidMc0]

@bones

Totally agree, so we shouldn’t have double farming rewards, and should not pump out excessive tokens.

I agree in terms of optimal token economics for the network.

But, if the network creators feel it’s important to ensure early investors / holders’ SNT wealth is distributed over time to those who are farming, it may be considered worthwhile to sacrifice some network growth to achieve it.

[bones]

Afaik, double farming reward was only mentioned in response to worries that the network wallets could be targeted for attack.

Solutions have been discussed for this which to me are much more preferable than pushing the coins out to reduce the wish to steal them.

[DavidMc0]

@bones

Exactly, it doubles, so if its all distributed early, this doubling is limited as the no of spare coins is depleted faster.

Yes. With the doubling of StoreCost, the rate of depletion of the reserve / full dilution of SNT would depend on the velocity of SNT through the system. E.g. as soon as a total of 4.068bn (I think?) SNT have been spent on storage / farmed, the dilution will be complete.

[bones]

@DavidMc0

Yes. With the doubling of StoreCost, the rate of depletion of the reserve / full dilution of SNT would depend on the velocity of SNT through the system. E.g. as soon as a total of 4.068bn SNT have been spent on storage / farmed, the dilution will be complete.

Exactly, and this will then not allow extra farming reward in times of need for the network to incentive more storage to be added.

[bones]

To sum up.
Imo, all pushing coins out does is

1. Stop upward price momentum.
2. Reduce networks capacity to incentives more storage when needed.

All to dilute ppl who helped fund the network and waited ( some of us a very long time ) for it to be born.

[DavidMc0]

@bones

this will then not allow extra farming reward in times of need for the network to incentive more storage to be added.

That shouldn’t ever be necessary, as StoreCost will automatically adjust pricing for network users & therefore reward for providing resources so that the network never fills up too much (if network is getting too full, StoreCost goes up, so demand for storage is a little lower, and rewards to farmers a little higher so it should balance out).

[bones]

@DavidMc0

That shouldn’t ever be necessary, as StoreCost will automatically adjust pricing for network users & therefore reward for providing resources so that the network never fills up too much (if network is getting too full, StoreCost goes up, so demand for storage is a little lower, and rewards to farmers a little higher).

That just stops ppl uploading as much, further hampering the network and putting it out of reach of those with less money, while doing nothing to encourage extra storage be added.

It doesn’t affect reward, reward is the farming rate, which cant go up as spare coins are all depleted

[DavidMc0]

@bones

That just stops ppl uploading as much, further hampering the network and putting it out of reach of those with less money, while doing nothing to encourage extra storage be added.

Not really - that mechanism simply finds the market price where users are willing to pay for storage, and farmers are willing to supply storage.

The actual demand for the network’s services, and actual cost of supplying resources to the network are external to the network’s internal economics and can’t be affected by the network, or at least not in the long term.

If at a given price, people are storing too much data & farmers are supplying too little capacity, the price needs to go up for things to balance, so it should be adjusted. If you wish farmers would provide more storage at price that is below their actual willingness to provide resources, you could temporarily subsidise them, but it won’t be a long term solution. Why not just let the market price be found?

[DavidMc0]

@bones

It doesn’t affect reward, reward is the farming rate, which cant go up as spare coins are all depleted

The farming rate is directly related to the StoreCost, which will always be adjusted to ensure sufficient available resources.

From the RFC:

Establishing StoreCost

We’ll make the following definitions related to the numbers of nodes within a single section:

• N = total number of nodes
• F = number of currently full nodes (those whose last Put request failed because they’re full)
• G = number of good nodes = N - F

We want to reduce the cost to store (and hence also the farming reward) when the number of good nodes increases, and also when the proportion of full nodes decreases. To that end, we’ll use the following formula:

StoreCost = 1/G + F/N

Currently, I think Farming Reward is 2x StoreCost, but once the reserve is depleted, it’d be equal to StoreCost, but will still vary acorrding to supply / demand by the StoreCost formula.

[bones]

I’m not sure where you get this from.

The spare network coins were always there to increase farming rate in times of network need.

Feel like I’ve jumped to a different world in the multiverse hearing you state otherwise.

[DavidMc0]

Here’s where I got it. It says it’s current and not superceeded, though it does say it’s fairly simple and will be reviewed based on test net results etc:

maidsafe/rfcs/blob/master/text/0057-safecoin-revised/0057-safecoin-revised.md

[bones]

I’m not going of rfc, but what has been stated as intent time and time over.

If the rfcs don’t match up to what I have been led to believe for all these years, that really is cause for concern.

[DavidMc0]

@bones

but what has been stated as intent time and time over.

Stated by who though? I don’t remember any dev or founder explain the reasoning for the reserve, only heard opinions of forum users who think a reserve has some kind of place where they think following the market price would cause problems.

I think the RFC is the best place to look to guide a likely implementation, even if it doesn’t match up with what some community members think should be the case.

Again though, the RFC is clear that things could change, and it’s from August 2019, so who knows what the current thinking of the devs is on this issue.

[bones]

@DavidMc0

The farming rate is directly related to the StoreCost, which will always be adjusted to ensure sufficient available resources.

Again, if that’s what the rfc states I can’t dispute it.

But storecost is storecost and afaik was never supposed to directly cover farming reward.

I was always under the impression they were totally separate, hence why the network needed spare coins to function as intended.

[bones]

I dont want to put words in anyones mouth, and possibly I’m wrong, but I have gained these notions from things that David has stated over the years.

He may have never stated what spare coins were for, but I came to that conclusion based on everything he has said.

[DavidMc0]

From the Farming Reward Calculation section:

When a client pays to store or mutate data, the payment will be immediately be divided amongst farmers

I can’t currently imagine any benefit of moving away from a mechanism that lets a true market price develop around a decided optimal level of spare capacity.

If farming rewards are ever disconnected from StoreCost, it will lead to an imbalance in the pricing & over / under supply of storage.

So, I quite like the RFC vs the common wisdom on the forum, except for the dilution, which I think may end up being counterproductive for network growth due to it reducing the expected future value of farming rewards.

[bones]

Again, i can only repeat, I feel as though I’ve swapped worlds in the multiverse!

Kinda at a loss for words.

[DavidMc0]

Hopefully some other users, or even devs will chip in later and clarify

Though I fear if Neo and Jlpell get involved I’ll be in trouble

[neo]

The new RFC states

Farming

We will update RFC 0012 where we alter the calculations on sacrificial chunks to that of relocated chunks.

Giving farming rewards as 2x store cost or even 1x store cost will never work since data can be retrieved more than once. Any reasonable thought is that there will be more GETS than PUTS on a network.

There is by necessity a logical disconnect from storing costs and farming rewards. Yes there is a mathematical connection since they use many of the same parameters to calculate the amounts. But the logical disconnect is forced by the facts that

• Storing occurs prior to getting.
• Storing the piece of data can be minutes or days or months or years before reading that data.
• getting of the stored data can range from never to millions of times.
• time of getting of said data will be spread out over some time

Thus the network will receive payments in advance and keep that in a store.
And the network will pay rewards when earned and is not related to any predictable time period.

And your point from before

I think this makes the most sense to me as a valid reason for the supply dilution; to ensure early investors / holders don’t hog a big quantity of the token supply over time, and those who contribute to the ongoing health of the network eventually get the biggest share.

is extremely important.

Also a buffer must exist at some time even if all coins are given out before hand. Otherwise some farmers will receive zero rewards for GETs. To give all coins out up front requires that more is received in store costs than given out for rewards (over entire network or section).

How could anyone guarantee that there will be more received in store costs than needed for rewards in a given time period. What if storing drops for a period say due to an event. And people are retrieving more data during event due to the nature of the event. Are farmers rewards going to drop to near zero or actually zero at times?

The fact there needs to be a buffer for these times raises the question of why not keep what is current and have the buffer able to handle decades of massive ups and downs rather than the network live hand to mouth.

[Dimitar]

@neo

Thus the network will receive payments in advance and keep that in a store

According to David, there will be no reserve. It is estimated that there will be constant spending of new coins:

Question about the wallets of the Sections

What happens is a section with X coins splits into 2 sections with x/2 coins in it. Spend mean recycle coins to the nodes in the network. So clients will not be putting coins in and they stay there for any appreciable time, they are quickly paid out in rewards and those nodes earning get paid.