It is time for ERC20 MAID!

Ah, you found it. Better eyes than me. Still doesn’t change the fact that the writer was comparing TV advertising for Audi and BMW with Tesla’s total unitemized “advertising, promotion and related marketing expenses”. No matter which way you slice it, Tesla does very little marketing for their cars compared to other auto companies. When was the last time you saw a TV commercial for a Tesla or a slick magazine advertisement? How about a billboard? Paid social media?

The point is: If SAFE Network is a game-changing technological achievement, a la Tesla, it won’t need a lot of promotion. Sometimes it is better to let the product speak for itself instead of relying on what @Warren rails about, “sponsored media”, which is primarily suspect from the get-go by many these days.

1 Like

To this day most people don’t know much about Musk or Tesla, or how much EV’s have already surpassed ICE cars. But most people who take a test drive in a Tesla suddenly get it. They want one. They tell their friends about it. The high quality of the product shines through, becoming the most powerful from of marketing. On the other hand, there has been Talk in the Tesla community to see if advertising would turbo charge adoption, which is valid. This mean we might need other kinds of marketing, or even advertising. ERC20 is just another option for getting the word out. Just lets Focus more on getting the car out the factory door first, so to speak, so people can start taking a spin. Cheers

No matter how you slice it, Tesla states marketing is crucial to their success, and they choose to allocate their marketing spend to efforts other than traditional advertising.

Indeed, the very fact that we’re even discussing whether Tesla markets is a product of their marketing. They’ve built a brand around the illusion that their product sells itself because they don’t advertising, when any savvy marketer knows that a TV spot isn’t what sells your product.

Also, this is way off topic, and I’m ducking out of this convo b/c I know certain folks here would rather go down with the ship arguing rather then keep on sailing…



They do? Crucial? I have yet to see where that marketing spend is allocated. I would love to see it broken down by source and by auto versus solar energy business.

“They’ve built a brand around . . . the illusion that the product sells itself”. Not an illusion - Musk and his followers are merely telling the truth about the product. And that sells. You are right though, this has developed off-topic. Interesting discussion though.

When that Starship gets into orbit for the first time it will be the literal 2nd coming.
That is watching the Nina, the Pinta and the Santa Maria land on the other shore and recognizing what it means as it happens. And its the same game 600 years later! Just as fireworks the airline and telecom industries will have an instant cardiac. We finally found another great American and of course it was an imigrant who will now spark a mass migration off planet. It will instantly right 70 years of American mistakes, its a get out of jail free card and a chance to make amends.

1 Like

David I agree with what you say and I want to draw your attention to a question and give your opinion on it.

Imagine living in a part of the planet where you work for 350 euros a month. Not the richest part, not the poorest. You have a child and a woman to take care of. A pair of shoes costs 30 euros. Your child changes 2 pairs of shoes a year because his feet grow.

Imagine you bought a second hand computer and used it to make 15-20 euro a month from, let’s say, Storj. Yes, if you are in a rich part of the planet, you can refuse to earn these 15-20 euros because you don’t want to give your email.

But if you are in the poorest part of the planet and you have to buy another pair of shoes for your child, then maybe you will make an anonymous email somewhere and give it to Storj?

These things are very good and there is no one who does not want them, but before them you must have a basis - food, a roof on your head.

And because millions and millions of people on the planet are poor for them, the first thing the Safe Network will give them will be money. Money for them and their families.

Where will this money come from? From people from rich countries, where they do not have to give their email to earn 15-20 euros a month.

From countries where people have a base line and can afford to think about other than how to buy their child’s shoes…

The Safe network allows people to own part of the web infrastructure. For the most people who will use the Safe network, the important thing will be the little extra money they can earn. And not because they are bad people, but because most people are poor. Children die of hunger every day !!!

Of course, I understand why most people who live in rich countries find it difficult to think about money first and think that people who think about money first are bad. It’s just that their daily lives are different…


Money is a poor driver… and talking about it a waste of time.

Money follows other considerations. Otherwise you end up indulging short term errors and create what is not sustainable and with no irony something that creates a lot less wealth for everyone in the long-term. Statements of the obvious that every interest is important… it’s about finding balance.

Money is a poor measure of more important realities, like wealth and utility.

Money is life when you don’t have it. In this case, the Safe Network gives an equal chance to more people to make money. For some poor people it will be a lot of money, for other rich people it will be a little money. For the rich, other things will be more important. For the poor the opposite.


A thirsty man only thinks of water.

Still, we are focused on what is good for everyone not just a minority.

I think it is generally the opposite, the richer the country the more the people want more, just more. They don’t know what they want the money for they just want more. Ofc even in those countries there are those that have almost nothing but live in a money-driven place and have little hope of getting comfortable or fed.

I have been in countries that came out form the iron curtain and have seen the craze for cash, fancy cars sitting outside run-down houses with broken windows, and kids with no shoes. The fancy car was them saying to folk “I have made it”.

However SAFE should help all those with little or nothing, it’s a core principle to give value to everyone. That value will have money flowing behind it as a consequence. That is inevitable I feel.

So again I am not saying money is bad, not at all, that’s a different conversation. I am saying provide value and all else will follow naturally. Yes tell folk about your value proposition, get the word out, but provide value first.


Exactly. The rich are the minority.

Any minority… everyones perception of what is important is different.

Build a garden of Eden and the thirsty man can note to others there is a river running through it.
Others who are hungry for privacy, security and freedom can have their fill.

David, I am trying to tell you that the SAFE value is different for different groups of people. For the poor, the value is that they can earn a few dollars more a month for shoes or food. This is valuable for them.

If in England one can make $ 10 a month with a SAFE vault, one can make the same in Africa. Equal chance for both rich and poor.

If you daing of starvation, the word freedom means nothing to you. If you have nowhere to live, pievacy means nothing to you. If you look at your child barefoot, the word security means nothing to you.

Everyone’s needs are different. There will be rich and poor that need access to information i.e. data. That data will help them sow grain, farm, build houses, get qualifications and more. People will also want to buy clothes and perhaps not make them, then buy food and not grow it, then …

Everyone’s needs are different, very different, but thinking that everyone’s need is money is not right. Many will benefit from money, but to see safe a a money making machine is very wrong.

Exactly. However, perhaps more importantly all those people can communicate, learn, and exchange ideas. The African person or the English person can create the next Twitter or create a globally successful business employing many around them and much more. SAFE should flatten the opportunity curve globally, but not by giving more cash to the poor, but equalising the opportunity for all (everyone). This is a very important point. We cannot take control of the worlds money supply and redistribute it, but we can give more people more opportunity. Even this though assumes everyone has a computer internet and electricity, so it’s still ignoring way too many and we need to get those people on-board. Everyone with these things should and hopefully will have more equal opportunities than they have today.


I think @Dimitar has a very valid point here. He is not speaking of money as an excess, but money as tool for basic survival. The driver is not money, but it is to get food somehow, and money is an instrument for that.

So many people, who have never experienced poverty themselves, don’t understand how rigid the concept of money / wealth is when you have almost none of it. It almost seems like some people don’t understand that the equation is (not having) = 0. They always think that “if it is really really important, then we find money under some rug”. Or maybe you have to sell some shares, and it hurts, but in the end the situation is flexible. It is not for everybody.

I remember once, years ago, when I was visiting a friend in Lithuania. He was a student and there was three of them living in a two room flat, so that two of them were sharing a room. My girlfriend at the time said something like “Yeah, you could actually make this quite nice by sharing the room with a bookself”. One of them answered: “Yeah, but we don’t have the bookself.” My girflriend continued somehow proposing that they could get one, but I don’t remember exactly how it went, because I got so embarrased.

Now in Finland if you were really poor and didn’t have much preferneces, you could find a free or very cheap bookself from second hand market, recycyling center etc. But at that time in Lithuania, no way. I don’t know how it is nowadays.


This is what I say yes. For me, the ability of the Safe Network to help the poorest people on the planet make a little more money and die fewer children is the most valuable thing about the Safe Network. Of course, everything else that David describes is also important, but the redistribution of resources and the opportunity to have a steady income is the greatest value because it has the potential to save lives.


I’m not suggesting money is not a motivator… as above the absence of water is a motivator.

Still, money is suggested sometimes as the root of evil because it warps the perception of what is important. Money is a secondary consideration… an important one but it’s a byproduct.

It’s a difference too between short term and long term thinking… what is best for everyone, is that which works long-term and produces most value… in all aspects, including money.

To focus just on money, is error… and I would have thought an obvious one!

Let me try to explain it to you like this. You want freedom, security, privacy. This is the product you are looking for.

The poor man wants to buy his child’s shoes. If the poor person joins the Safe network now it will lead to the production of your product.

But in order for the poor man to receive shoes for his child, he needs a direct method of selling safecoins in rich countries.

For him, local safecoin is not an offer. You will not come to Bulgaria to buy 1 safecoin.

But if the poor man has access to a large market with speculators, he will be able to sell there immediately.

This means that as soon as the Safe Network starts, it will start saving lives. We will not have to wait for years for apps to be developed on the Safe Network.

Speculators will immediately start speculating on the future. So David is right and you are right. You are talking about the future. I’m talking about the beginning of the network.

1 Like

Creating a secondary market with a more expensive route to cashing out his safecoins will not help this guy.


True, but not alone, he could create apps, work for others across the network, farm etc. etc. Imagine farming works very well and we can distribute computers to these folk, solar powered, starlink connected and they “pay” for those computers via farming. Then work that out further and we distribute wealth in many forms, money, assets and access to the most valuable thing, data.

In parts of Africa the poor farmers were getting ripped of (Ethiopia) as they sold grain to middle men who took all the profit, they also grew wheat when wheat was plentiful and they should have grown oats. Then a stock market happened and with access to data (it was rudimentary once a day update via text) farmers knew the price of all cereals. So they did not need a simple payment to them, they needed data and that earned them cash.

So it’s the give a person a fish or give him a fishing rod type thing.

The answer to worldwide inequality is not cash injections alone, it’s equal opportunities.