No, they don´t. Cryptocurrency offer the potential to deal with value decentrally, that´s an important difference. The value is defined by trading individuals, not by supply. Even if there are only very few tokens of one commodity that doesn´t mean they have to be valuable, it´s a simple convention. Actually cryptocurrencies demonstrate that graphically: If you think Bitcoin is too expensive, you could technically just fork Bitcoin and do your own thing -but would people buy it? The Altcoin history showed: yes, some do, but most of them are not in for the long run. It´s the network that makes is valuable, not the token itself. As @janitor says correctly, “stable” is a relational term. We will never have a stable currency. If a community comes together, it will find its stable currency.
I agree here, in general at least.
I think where the problems are going to really show up is in the interface and conflict between an existing fiat/inflationary currency model, and an incoming deflationary model which is being adopted on a voluntary basis. The deflationary currency will tend to undermine and destroy the inflationary one, to the extent it is adopted and shows plainly the inflation of the fiat, upon which the whole current interdependency structure of exchange is built.
That is one reason introducing a deflationary currency is so scary: it turns existing relationships on their heads. This might unwind more smoothly, except that the lever-pullers will resist such adoption like crazy with capital controls, etc.
I completely agree. You have a knack for explaining things into simple a way. 
It scares me that people are already trying to add inflation to Safe Networks deflationary currency and it is not even live yet. I say, “Give Deflation a Chance.”
A functional currency that was stable would beat all other currencies. By stable, its value would not inflate and would not deflate. This would probably mean that once in circulation it could not practically or easily be traded for other currencies and at some point there might be no competitors. It might also mean that its supply would change to keep its value as stable as possible.
The idea of not being easily tradeable for other currencies may seem ridiculous. I give you my car and you pay me in Safe coin, then I buy another car with Safe coin. We dont trade Safe for fiat because we know its not good for a currency we want to succeed in part on the basis of stability. How powerful can this cultural agreement be? Who owns SAFE? You do, so don’t damage or diminish by trading it for manipulator currencies.
Some speculation would occur but good programming and informed culture might cancel its manipulation. This idea that SAFE bootstraps itself into wide circulation on the basis of increasing the value of a single coin seems like a speculator manipulation and a mistake. You know you wont get rich quick off the currency at all but that inspires trust, which is what we want out of money.
I thought the whole point if crypto currency would be to make a currency that was less prone to manipulation. States migh actually find such a currenct desireable. They had to manipulate to counter manipulation. An automatically stable currency would be more transparent, efficient and trust worthy and help smooth boom/bust.
You can have something like Nubits: https://nubits.com
They peg their currency against the USD: https://nubits.com/about/faqs#maintain-value
[Quote]
How do NuBits maintain their $1.00 US value?
-
NuShareholders can increase the supply of currency at any time and in any amount, to prevent the NuBits price rising above $1.00 US by bringing as many of them to market as necessary to suppress the price.
-
NuShareholders can pay interest to holders of NuBits who agree to take them out of circulation for a specified period, known as “parking”. The interest rate can be raised to whatever level is necessary to increase demand for NuBits enough to support a $1.00 US price.
-
Liquidity is provided via a trading program called NuBot which will peg the price in the very short term, but long enough so the main mechanisms listed above can be engaged by shareholders.[/Quote]
So, you can try to track another asset or a pool of assets. Whether this is desirable is a different question.
Also, you have to question how the source data is pulled, whether it is secure, etc.
Okay you lost me here because this is utter nonsense. Safecoin is tied to value and a comodity (computer resources) and fiat money is based on debt. Of course one is going to be deflationary compared to the other. Deflation and inflation are like reletive speeds and trajectories of movement they are also based on how people value a currency. No currency is going to be absolutely stable because no one is going to have exactly the same opinion about the value of EVERYTHING.
If Gold was the currency discussed is Gold’s price deflating or is fiat’s price inflating? One currency’s value is diminishing and the other’s is increasing. If we look at the one that is increasing we call it deflation. If we look at the one that’s decreasing we call it inflation. The more supply of a currency you create relative to it’s value to society the less value it will have per unit. Conversely if you decrease the amount of a currency relative to it’s value to society or increase a society’s value of the currency it’s value per unit will rise. This is true of not just currency but any tradable substance since any tradable substance can be a currency.
I propose that “stable” here has to mean “having consistent relative value.” Agreed?
If so, you may see the flaw in your statement. “Value” is and always will be a relative concept.
Inflation means that the currency has less relative value over time. Deflation means that the currency has greater value over time. Even with a value-based, limited supply currency, this relative value will shift depending on the social, political, environmental, technological, etc., factors in play. But generally it will tend to deflate, at least in the short and medium term. Eventually it might become fairly consistent in relative value.
The only way to have a really stable currency is to allow the currency to BE STABLE, and let other things adjust around it. Gold has been good at this throughout history, but it’s not very convenient. A fancy toga in ancient Rome and a fancy suit in modern times cost about the same in terms of gold.
Safecoin will be really good at this, especially after it’s had a time to stablize after early adoption. Keeping money from deflating is vital to keeping credit schemes from imploding. Why borrow when storing your money away will result in increased value over time?
The only way to have a “stable” currency otherwise is to adjust the supply arbitrarily. This ALWAYS leads to mischief.
What happens when oil is scarce for example? Even your magic “stable money” will not buy as much as it used to because everything it needs to buy needs to be shipped using oil.
Or a salmonila outbreak changes the price of eggs. Or all of the forests in Washington State burn down and the cost of construction inches up. Or China bans rare earth exports and drives up the price of hard drive storage…
Currency is “the language of value” as values change, the language will change too. A chicken today may not be worth a chicken tomorrow. Nothing will every change that…
You could make a currency that doesn’t inflate it’s supply – but you cannot make one that doesn’t deflate it’s supply – you have know way to know if currency is stuffed under somebody’s mattress or if it is lost forever.
I agree. Currency is just another exchangable good. Making a “stable” currency that won’t inflate or deflate is like creating food that won’t rot. Yes you can do it but it’s dangerous and kind of ignores the reason of WHY food rots in the first place: because we need the nutrients to return to the soil so we can grow more food. Likewise WHY do we need currency to be able to inflate or deflate? Because currency is just a word we assign to some THING we like to exchange a lot and use as a token of value. We could use pistachio shells as a currency if we wanted and could all agree that pistachio shells were of value tho I really don’t think we would. The reason gold or silver works as a currency is everyone uses it, or knows someone who uses it, and therefore everyone can agree it’s of value, it can be easily formed into uniform coins or bars that can be easily carried and it’s useful for other applicatons. Cryptocurrency is of value for much the same reasons. People agree it has value, it’s easily transportable and has many uses. But be it gold, safecoin or a bowl of nuts and you’re still bartering and trading stuff. See this is where people get confused. Quid pro quo > Barter > Monatary exchange commerce. But monetary exchange commerce is STILL a form of barter which in turn is still a form of quid pro quo. Get it straight people. Designing a value based currency that won’t deflate makes about as much sense as telling people they aren’t allowed to decide how much a product is worth. Safecoins already get destroyed when they get spent when buying from the network. That alone should stabailize things quite a bit.
Hear, hear!
Related to that - this hasn’t occurred to me before - it’s kind of funny that this question is coming up now.
Now it should be too late for this question because the Project has committed to a certain approach (whatever it is, it doesn’t matter).
If we think that the plan is (or should be) open to discussion, then it makes sense to discuss the idea of rewriting the contract between the issuer and users. But Fergish’es quote about the stability also applies to instability - if any change becomes possible, there’s a chance of mischief. Perhaps we should first consider the conditions under which such change would be possible (for example, a certain percentage of all MAID token holders would have to be in favor).
If I’m not mistaken, once MAID is converted into SAFE, it would not be as easy to vote on that issue.
It is too late. I don’t get that we’re arguing, here, to change anything, just to understand the pluses and minuses of the path we’re traveling, at least as far as this thread goes. Luckily, it looks like all pluses! 
I’m just waiting for Mr @dirvine to chime in.
I feel like we bump around in the dark in things like this, shooting off different ideas, and then he comes in and explains the true vision and clears it all up.
So I’m just waiting for that 
SAFE will programatically increase in stability over time as its circulation increases. Having it slowly and predictable deflate into increasing stability over time seems to be the goal. It will be relatively stable at all points, but even the deflation should be minimal.
There is a sense in which tech itself exerts a deflationary force but the currency should be at least stable relative to the goods we need for everyday life. If the currency works it replaces the reserve status and the Fed with maths.
Interesting prognostication, but do you have any reason to believe that?
Cryptocurrencies have a long history of being volatile. I have no reason to believe SAFEcoin will be any different. If millions and millions of people stream in and want SAFEcoin it will definitely cause the price to go up.
True but remember you can farm safecoin as well as buy it. Also safecoin doesn’t get recirculated once spent so it NEEDS to be farmed. All safecoin bought will either be from the network or from farmers, and I’m thinking more likely from farmers. Bitcoin you need specialized equipment to mine. Safecoin? Not so much. So while millions and millions might be streaming in who want safecoin millions and millions will also be streaming in who can PRODUCE safecoin.
Yes, but you don’t have to spend it on storage. Plenty of people will buy it just for speculation. Thats why a lot of people own it now… All deflationary currencies ought to be good savings devices… Thus people are encouraged to save, the supply is decreased, and the price rises.
There is only so much of it, and it only gets recycled if spent on network storage, not pizza or the like.
I think that Warren is just making stuff up… 
There is no such thing as “Sable currency” because there is no such thing a a fixed value in any economy. Supply and demand surges and wanes on nearly every commodity. SAFEcoin will be no different.
i’m thinking about what it would be if a safecoin had a lifetime spawn… to be something perishable. there would be no reason in running after safecoins and keep them under the bed, because they would die after x amount of time. when you farm, you will farm to get safecoins for that time being, and not for future use. the coins would then be regenerated by the network once they expire, for other people to farm them
That could backfire you know. For some people saving money is essential. A decaying currency could cause people to switch to another currency that they COULD use to store wealth. If safecoin decayed then just farm safecoin then sell it for say gold and store THAT under the bed.
from what i’ve read, the safecoin came into play after the idea of the making the secure and autonomous network. the role of safecoin is being a reward for the people who store other people’s chunks of data. thus a safecoin should be spent for the same reason. it’s like you store my chunks and i store yours. safecoin is just the proof that i stored your data and you gathered from me, right? so, going back to first place, why should i exchange data storage with you, if you don’t need this by the time being? i could do this to others who need this by the time being. thus the perishable safecoin. and if a safecoin dies, nobody is going to use it for other things than storage within the network. nobody will accept to sell gold in exchange to a dying safecoin. considering this approach, i wonder if the safecoin should be paid for GET and not PUT.
anyway, back to perishable coins, think of the perishable vegetables you were talking about, that you farm. you can’t hold them for a long time, that’s why you consume them. in a perfect world, you would farm vegetables just as many as you would need to eat. the rest of the land you will give to another man who needs to eat, too. why farm too many safecoins if you only need to store little data on the network? it’s against the purpose of the safecoin