MAID => SNToken issuance at launch

It’s all in fun. I think both rely heavily on human psychology but you have to first remove your own psychology for you to be effective. That’s my assumption on why TA doesn’t work for most but works great for the fewer (also they play house odds with risk/reward ratios) and why most economists aren’t very accurate.

Off topic though.

1 Like

Let the Maidsafe team make the economic system they see fit.

Or let other people who have a high knowledge of economics choose.

A poll don’t seem neccessary because a high amount of people don’t seem to know enough about economics to undestand, what the decisions they would make would mean and result in.

1 Like

I respect that opinion but we all know that a community poll is a suggestion, not a decision. Ultimately it is always up to Maidsafe but it is highly beneficial to them to know where a majority stand so they know how to present their choices to the community.

3 Likes

This is correct but misses the point I’m making, which is that this is different from the system we are/were expecting, where the network is a significant source of SNT provided to farmers as it inflates the supply over time. This necessarily depresses the price, hence my point that the split/cap is likely to provide a more immediate rise, countered by the willingness of holders to sell which we can expect to diminish as they reduce their holdings. So short to medium term we can expect prices to rise more with cap/split than without, until SNT are more widely distributed. Different approaches will converge over time towards the situation when max SNT are in circulation regardless of how this is done.

Exactly. So as long as the network is more secure from the get go and people feel it’s cheap enough to store and profitable enough to farm then the only differences are order and timing of similar events. So does one order or timing of events present different outcomes? Or all the same? :exploding_head:

1 Like

9 posts were split to a new topic: About economics

I think it is actually brilliant having a network which doesn’t hold coins or distributes them. Again a unique feature for SAFE.
Immediately 99% of the hackers are not interested anymore.

So only problem are the current whales. But they only are a serious threat on POS chains IMO.
So what can they do here? Dump the price? They can and could or maybe are doing this already all the time, so is this a (new) problem?
You lose some value (so what?), but on the other hand you win redistribution.
Whales are everywhere, on every chain. I don’t see it as a serious problem here.

We are lucky that this project took so long :sweat_smile:, everybody had already (and still have) the chance to jump in very cheap.
The whales we have are probably the most committed and dedicated ones in crypto space.

7 Likes

In the worst case, the mass of people will decide that this initial distribution is not fair and will copy the network with a fairer economic model and distribution.


Privacy. Security. Freedom

Individual token price would likely drop if the number of coins in circulation increases. The total market cap may stay the same.

However, the implicit fear of inflation would likely lead to the price (irrationally) tanking such that the total market cap decreases also. This is why I think capping to current MAID supply is more optimal than inflating to total SNT supply.

Regardless, capping (or inflating) supply would all be meaningless (and likely detrimental) if the exchange access issues remain unsolved. For the Network to grow, the tokens must be able to find their way into new hands. Farmers will also need a way to trade (I.e. recycle) tokens they have earned. This in turn raises the question of whether the Network would actually distribute rewards or users just pay farmers for services.

Also, capping the supply underscores the need for divisibility.

6 Likes

yeah, maybe. I think there will be 1000 of reasons for making a fork. I will happen anyway. That’s the nature of these crypto open source projects.

Also every coin creator finds his economic model the most fair. But still other creators think they can do better. And so we have now around 6000 coins…It is what it is

The difference is that you give them a real reason to say that the small group of people here have taken all the money, provided that they have had the choice to give the money to a foundation to accelerate the growth of the ecosystem paying for uploading useful data…


Privacy. Security. Freedom

That don’t seem right as it would not be inflation as it would represent the same thing only that the current holders value would not suffer by future inflation. 100 of 1000 = 10%, 1000 of 10 000 = 10%.

Inflation is when you for example hold 100 of 1000 and then supply goes to 10 000 but your amount stays the same, gets diluted and loses value. Example:

100 of 1 000 = 10% and then 100 of 10 000 = 1%, which would give 1000% inflation.

If the market is rational then demand for Maid should initial go up as the market realise that their future predictions of 1000% inflation won’t happen, which will give that their current Maid holdings have possibility for higher long term relative value. But then when network goes live more might be sold earlier in the networks history because without inflation investors will reach their individual goals earlier and move investments to less risky assets.

@happybeing I don’t understand what you mean with split/cap, you have to elaborate.

2 Likes

I think we could do something this and retain the benefits.

Spitballing:
The network needs to create 15% of the supply for the existing base. It could also create the rest of the supply for random farmer wallet recipients. The remaining 85% becomes a glorified airdrop with a caveat. The network would only need to verify that the farmer provided valid chunks. This happens by default, so farmer receives their share of PUT fee + genesis allocation.

Then you instant dilute current investors and throw the punishment hammer on them, instead of it taking many years as with original thoughts, it would rather happen instantly.

I would probably put 10-20% into a market maker fund, depending on the details.

If there was some way to do it using defi maybe more.

It would be great to have more liquidity.

2 Likes

It wouldn’t happen instantly, it would take a long time as farmers join the network and request their genesis bonus after doing valid/correct storage and retrieval.

1 Like

I would rather there was made some % pool that could aid the farmers if the markets gets into some form of shock/crisis.

@dirvine
Also I would make sure that there is a pool of funds for the Maidsafe foundation. I believe that privacy/security online is not only won through software, I think it would be good if people from future foundation went and lobby for internet privacy at example Davos, World Econmic Forum, Agencies, Governments, Organisations and so on, also support tech for privacy/security open source and so on.

Also that some form of campaign would be made to spread the word about paying the producer to counter negative views on the network, used by groups who have negative views on internet privace/security. Too counter effects from possible future piracy.

1 Like

The unfair thing with total supply at start of the network Is, that with current lack od options to buy MAID and doing KYC you can not even buy it before.

2 Likes

Really? Are you sure on these figures?

Edit.
I’m not sure your doing percentages right chap.

2 Likes

Changed now, at least the most recent.