At launch - if every user becomes a vault and there is too much storage capacity compared to need for storage - wouldnt it kill the safecoin price. What about if there is always more storage available on network then the need, I am just trying to see what would cause the safecoin price to rise to $100 or more?
Actually it would make the coin more scarce since very few coins are being created to reward the farmers.
The farming rate drops dramatically if there is a glut of spare space.
So I reckon the price increases since the issuance is scarce.
Yeah there really is no model for what we are doing. Having a market where there are so many weight baring factors is crazy. We’re going to have the exchanges which already exist, then there will be the actual network and what people will pay to put data versus what the network will pay farmers and then of course there will be trade that happens on the network for goods, services, content, apps etc.
Very very interested to see what happens personally.
I foresee us using automated calculators that connect our nodes or turn the vaults off and on with the supply and demand increases and decreases. In other words this too will be gamed to a point but I do recall David saying if your node is not reliable e.g. offline, you won’t be rewarded as often or as likely.
Unlikely. Each time you turn off the Vault you lose half of your ranking and when you reconnect you have high chances of losing your Elder status. So play the connection-reconnect game is extremely dangerous and economically inefficient.
How would you move a vault to a new physical building address?
Could I login to a new farm using the same login details at a new address, wait for it to sync, then unplug my original farm?
Would not want to lose vault status.
Yeah for sure but it’ll be something akin to that. Perhaps fake filling the nodes space locally to prevent any further access. I dunno. Point is it’ll be gamed/leveraged whatever way you want to look at it and it’s not necessarily a bad thing.
I like Neo’s response that the farming rate drops if there is a glut of spare space.
I also agree with the other responses that there are some variables yet to be seen.
Lastly, I do think we need to keep storage space affordable so an increase in safecoin price should allow more storage to be bought - so as long as buying storage space is linked to actual value of safecoin rather than a unit of it (like 1 safecoin=1GB) instead it should be linked to value of safecoin. That is if 1safecoin @ $15 buys 5 GB, so if safecoin price increases to $50, then the same 1 safecoin can buy 17GB or something then that would be awesome. That way the safecoin price also increases and storage also remains affordable and network keeps growing too. Moreover, safecoin needs to be divisible so that if safecoin price is $50, and i need only 10 GB, I can spend .4 safecoin to do that.
I am sure it will be automated but it should not punish the price of safecoin if the network grows. It should just allow you to get more for that price.
(I raised this question because i read somewhere that supply/demand will adjust automatically and will price the coin - so just wanted to make sure that we dont want to be stuck in a range. and that - Network growth, increase in demand for storage meant increase in safecoin price and with increased price, one could get more resources to also keep affordability intact).
I am sure there are a lot of coin holders and investors here that want to see safecoin price grow exponentially.
The safecoins will buy puts. The price of the puts depends on how much extra storage space the network has. As neo mentioned, the farming rate (ie rate of inflation) also depends on this.
No, because then its open to manipulation.
Also technically how would one do this anyhow. It means that there needs to be some central control over the issuance of safecoin and the PUT price. The central control might be the price on a set of exchanges. But still central control and also one that is open to manipulation.
The farming rate will be the thing that influences the price the most and that is based on the network’s need and not the trader’s needs
Yes true, but MAID was never marketed as a money making coin, but one that will exchange for safecoin that is also not money making but one that is used to buy resources and to be rewarded with. And one that can be used as a unit of exchange over the network.
As such any increase in value potential is in the minds of the holder and not in the interest of the network nor in the minds of developers. Yes it is expected that as a utility coin then it will gain value and may very well end up in a range for much of its life. The range may increase as cost of living goes up, but that is the risk everyone who bought MAID takes.
Sorry if I sound anti profit making on the coin, but that is the way it was marketed and there is no developing being done to make it a profit instrument either. It is simply a utility coin to allow people to buy resources and be rewarded similarly.
Now as we see in the crypto coin space (which safecoin is really not a part of) coins can rise in value by pure speculation and perceived value.
I think this is a great question. From my understanding no one (except maybe David or others in the know) can answer this with any certainty until the algorithm and divisibilty are finalized. I think most responses here are in good faith, but we wont know for sure until everything is finalized.
I dont think value of the coin and utility need to be separated out - especially if it is divisible. If the value of the coin increases with network growth, it just allows you to buy more resources. I dont see any harm to the network usability in that scenario. Why would you want to stall the price or make it dynamic range bound? - I am sure it has to be designed more logically so that safecoin holders are rewarded well. I am sure that was the hope/goal when Maidsafe raised money and kept certain coins for business dev and other purposes and rewarded early investors in maidsafe coins.
Again I think both objectives can be met - price increase of the safecoin and also keep it intact as a utility coin. The price can increase with growth in network and it can be made divisible so that higher price can allow to buy more resources.
What is not clear, my friend?
If the price goes up, more people will become farmers. This will increase the storage space you will be able to buy with 1 safecoin. This will increase the price of the coin even more and more people will become farmers.
This is a self-supporting circle upwards… Yes, there will be a limit. But it will come after half of humanity uses the SAFE net. The price of the currency will be in the order of 100-1000$ minimum. (an assumption, of course, is not financial advice)
I don’t, but if the market sees the utility (buy/reward network resource + as a medium of exchange) only living in a certain price range then it will. The point was that unlike most crypto out there the coin was not created to make money for people. Mind you bitcoin also was not created to make money for people since it was an experiment. The motivation is not to make people speculative profits but for a method of enticing and dis-incentivise farmers plus rewarding the farmers and controlling spam by making people pay a little to store.
You need to understand that to do as you suggest is to make a manipulative coin that purposely makes people money. The coin is to make the network work and in the process allow farmers to earn coin for their efforts.
So you want MAID turned into a security with promised and engineered profits. Not happening if they keep to their talk.
Lets face it if the safenetwork is a success then so would the safecoin be also, even if only priced as a utility.
This is not just obvious, but what has always been said is the basic goal of any algorithm being written. It is the whole premise behind enticing more farmers when needed and demotivating some farmers when way too much spare storage.
it is important to note which farmers will be de-motivated (for those who have not read the forum for years)
Home users will be motivated to farm for each farming rate different from 0. But those who will buy servers to farm will give up on a certain farming rate…
One doesn’t have to turn off their vaults randomly. I may have a number of old vaults always on and add a few new ones if I think it’s worth it, then turn them off if I figure I was wrong. It would not affect my old vaults.
It doesn’t mean what you’re saying doesn’t apply, just that it’s a bit more nuanced.
If you switch on-off those new Vault you waste work without any reward since they never achieve the status of elders. And when becomes profitable to farm again, you will be at a disadvantage compared to other farmers.
The network, basically, punishes any unreliable node. Logical since it generates extra work to the network.
A lot of this talk of coin price seems to assume that the price of the coin is inexorably tied to storage space or even farming rate. I disagree. Those things are tied to Safecoin, but not necessarily the other direction. Safecoin can easily untether itself from storage space and farming rates by simply performing at its duties well (near instant transactions with little to no fees), and having people engage in the network. If it becomes a currency, and not simply a utility coin, then all bets are off.
As I see it, storage purchasing price relative to Safecoin will be much more dependent on the network determining demand and adjusting storage price accordingly. If Safecoin skyrockets in price, the network will notice nobody is buying 1G for 1 Safecoin anymore and slowly adjust the prices until demand returns to some equilibrium state.
It’s a gross misinterpretation of what I wrote to say I would never let my vaults reach elder status. Where did I said switching on and off would be “the” strategy? It may make sense in some cases and not make sense in others, that’s all.
Let’s say I switch on a number of new vaults reacting to sudden growth in popularity but Safe was just getting slashdotted and demand takes a similarly sudden dive right after. It was ready to profit from the surge, which was a rational decision. When I see I was wrong, the similarly rational choice is to switch those new vaults off and not pay electricity and bandwidth until the times become ripe again. It’s quite simple, actually.
FYI, all the talk has been they start earning once they reach children, maybe adult. But definitely no need to be an elder for earning at full rate. Elder status benefits the network and not the vault owner. Your node can still age but only becomes elder is needed by the network section.
Of course this may change.
While true there is the linkage/causality of scarcity of new coin in the market. And new coin is directly caused by farming rate. So there is always a link to amount of free space.
Now we’ve seen that scarcity of new coin is one factor in the trading price.
And I agree that trading price will filter down to how much space space there is. It is really a closed system as you allude to.
That is not right or rather should not be correct. That is why Safecoin needs to be divisible so that with increase in safecoin price woud then allow you to purchase even more storage. ie if 1GB was priced at 1 safecoin and if safecoin price doubles you should be able to spend .5 safecoin to get the same amount of storage. Safecoin price should ONLY depend on the growth of the network. If the network grows so should the price of safecoin.
Divisibility of safecoin will ensure affordability but will not punish investors.
The network can grow and meet its social objective and can also reward patient holders/supporters/investors of the network. Both are not mutually exclusive. Look at Bitcoin. It is a perfect opensource example and there is more increased development going on.