Its true that maximum number of coins in finished network, going to be only 600 million?

I’m not sure why if the network holds the coins it makes any difference to farmers and adoption?
You are still getting paid for your resources so why does it matter?

Is the whole idea of not letting section wallets hold vast treasure troves the reasoning behind this?

Small early network with a only few sections holding hundreds of millions in a few wallets $$?
That is my understanding, so the fork better be very smart, if it is, that is evolution and a good thing.


Here’s another incentive that I think should be considered: an ongoing farming dividend to all token holders. I think we need to incentivize not only farming, but also token value. I too worry about the highly dilutive effects of the overhanging 85% of tokens especially during the early years. This will hurt current MAID holders, but more importantly early farmers. Yes, early rewards will be higher in terms of tokens, but that balance will be tricky. If the fiat value of the token goes down for a prolonged period that could be the death of the network. There is also the issue of failing fiat currencies world-wide and it would be helpful to the network to provide a refuge to that. So what I propose is simply that we keep the 15% for existing holders and open the rest (85% less foundation and other hold-backs) to farming. BUT, I propose for every token farmed a token be distributed to all account holders proportional to their holdings (their fraction of held tokens). This would then provide an ongoing bonus to early farmers, obviously all token holders, and would help bring extra money into the token, which can then be used to fund projects, apps, etc. It’s a sort of compromise between the two main ideas being considered in this thread and I think could work well.

EDIT: and this aligns the holder’s and the farmer’s interests into a win-win rather than a competition for tokens

1 Like

My understanding of the difference is as follows. You have 16k addresses that hold MAID at the moment. How many of them are ready to start a new job?

What new job?

Well, we say let these people spend their tokens. Finding and uploading data is a job. It is very doubtful that a large percentage of this people will do this job.

Well, if they don’t work, what will they do? They will sell the tokens to other people.

Why do we think that the new people who buy tokens from the old holders will buy them to start a new job?

Do we see this in any of the other projects like Sia, Storj, Filecoin? I see only speculators.

A Safe Foundation that spends tokens to upload data to the network is a perfect solution to this problem while creating a real economy around the network.

Privacy. Security. Freedom

Does the network retain the info required to distribute dividends to individual token holders? I suppose it must. I really like the additional dual incentive concept. There’s actually incentives on multiple levels for everybody. Big sacrifice to the security upgrades though. This will all be very interesting to follow.


Maybe that dividend is actually a slightly different token that allows for governance voting rights for upgrade proposals.

1 Like

I’ll give you an A for effort but I think that proposal is likely to be shot down with prejudice.

1 Like

A Safe Foundation is a great idea.
Is your proposal to give a handful of people control of 85٪ of network resources though?

Allocating a percentage to a foundation is great, hopefully only enough to get the network started otherwise I see that as very centralized control.

I’d rather see the funds go to 16k different addresses than a small group entirely.

No perfect solution though.


I agree that early farmers would still do very well in terms of ROI over time if the 85% dilution were to happen, but my point is that having no dilution would lead to a significantly higher ROI than with the dilution (for farmers who plan to hold long term).

E.g: if farmers earned 10% of SNT supply in the first year via people paying for storage, would most prefer it if:
A) the 10% they earned would always represent 10% of SNT supply and market cap, or;
B) the 10% they earned would represent a diminishing portion of SNT supply & market cap over time.

If my intention was to farm and hold for the long term, I’d definitely prefer to be a farmer in scenario A, though of course farmers in scenario B would likely also do very well in absolute terms.

That’s true for farmers who will sell tokens as soon as they earn them; the spot fiat price is all that’ll matter to them, which won’t be affected by future expected dilution, but by short term supply & demand for storage on the network.

But, for those who want to use farming to build up a long-term SNT position, a fixed supply would be hugely better than dilution over time in terms of growing the value of their earnings / holdings over time.

Yes, it certainly is complex. There are factors we just can’t know ahead of time that could change outcomes.

I guess the technical issues with the network holding and managing SNT will be the decider: if it is possible to implement what was originally planned without compromising privacy / security etc, it’ll likely happen. If giving the network those abilities is too big a risk, the switch to fixed supply will likely happen, for better or worse.

1 Like

You like privacy secure and freedom

But your way to solve problems is really centralized and foundation driven.

Let it to the MARKET, if SAFE network is useful than people will upload and make a app for their profit.

If not we are fail to get a users, and SAFE foundation’s upload strategy is totally not effective that situation.

I don’t understand, is there any marketing or foundation driven actions at BTC ? That is decentralized and market driven.

We are waiting truely decentralized protocol, not spot money game.


I thought one of the principles of the network was that it allowed farming rewards for all who could run suitable hardware. I see this as a great leveller, permitting an income source for both those who may be excluded for whatever reason from"normal" employment and allowing participation from the Third World. Ok so we are some way from running a vault on a phone - and that may never happen, but we should be encouraging farming participation from the widest range of potential users - and thus we should be focusing on paying out rewards that will be swapped for living expenses not pension pots for the privileged.

1 Like

I believe that without active intervention on our part in the first days, I see a huge probability that a copy of the Safe network will grow faster and become the dominant network. This is my assessment. I could be wrong.

Privacy. Security. Freedom

1 Like

If there is 16k wallets now, when the network launches I personally will be setting up around 20-30 safe wallets for friends and family. How many of the 16k will be doing something similar? Hasn’t David mentioned being in contact with the internet archive also? What about China? At least a billion people with restricted internet suddenly have access to anything they want (as long as it’s on safe) by simply downloading an app. Let’s not kid ourselves either a lot of nefarious activities will be taking place in the early days. Ive said it before but I don’t think the users will be a problem it will be the authorities. I feel for David and the team as it will be them they come for.

1 Like

Not in the first months, it takes time for govenments and their agencies to notice something and some more time to react.

1 Like

I’d be surprised if a relatively low-income Safe Network farmer could make a living from their SNT income from 1 or 2 computers, but if they got in early and saved some of their SNT, perhaps it could become life changing for them as the network becomes more widely adopted.

It’s likely that as the Safe Network grows, farmers will be able to borrow against SNT on various platforms, meaning they could benefit from SNT appreciation over time as well as getting cash for living expenses.

I hope farming can become an activity that benefits people in areas where they may not have the best internet or fastest computers.


Me too but it could be a valuable “add-on” that could make the difference between starving and surviving.

Indeed and this is one of the aspects that attracted me to the project in the first place.


That is where I stand at the moment. I too think it will be technical issues that will decide.

Although I feel if its technically suitable then they will keep to the 10+5+85% system at launch, even if just to keep to original plans/papers.


Though it has been mentioned that it could be considered that the supply could be proportionally adjusted to make 1 SN = $1. I believe the point would be to aid in the common understanding and comfort of denominations of DBCs that people feel with dollars.

So I feel like anything could be on the table. That might lead to a lot of conflict in coming to an agreement everyone is satisfied with so maybe the original agreement or what is technically best will win. Hard to say. I personally think the team wouldn’t fall short on the keystone of the network, so I will support any decision they make.


I trust the team to make the right call at the end of the day. There are other considerations beyond just the technical so I look forward to seeing what they come up with.

I’m not sure why denominations would be an issue. A banknote is a banknote. Surely an app will be able to do the real time conversion when issuing the DBCs, at least when online?


This is the part I’m talking about specifically when I reference 1 SN = $1 but it was a hypothetical idea.


Ah, I see what you are saying now. Yeah, I see nothing but problems with the USD although I know it is merely a hypothetical. On the other hand, bitcoin seems like an ideal candidate.

1 Like