MaidSafeCoin (MAID) - Price & Trading topic (Part 1)

Hello,

It is of course desirable to have as much info as possible about the Safe Network at a central place.
safenetwork.tech is a recent effort to do just that.
You say you weren’t aware of the distribution. You mean the 15%? There is an effort to describe that here: Safe Network
Maybe you’ve already read this and it wasn’t clear enough or too much info to process at once.
No problem for me, just wanted to point out that the distribution info is covered there.

I agree, but its also exhausting. Discussions like this bubble up here all the time, and it gets annoying. I would love to see my investment succeed as does anyone on this thread, but I’ve grown to appreciate the bigger SAFE Network picture, which puts success of the network above all else. It’s importance to humnity is staggering. The potential for true decentralized lateral power sharing is imperative if we are truly entering the age of augmented humanity. That being said 0.22 is a great price to load up. Cheers!

18 Likes

Sumed it up nicely Michael. My sentiments exactly. Just sit back and wait…

3 Likes

Is there a reason that 4.3 billion was chosen as total supply to begin with/a reason why that number can’t be adjusted before the actual token is produced and overall supply set at a much lower number?

That’s because each Safecoin should match with an unique number (=address), stored in an unsigned integer of 4 bytes or 32 bits. And 2^32 ~= 4.3 billion. You could argue that you don’t have to use the full capacity of that 4.3 billion, but once chosen and promised you have to have a real good reason to change it, I think.

1 Like

I agree that you shouldn’t change it once the “real coin” is ready and the network is actually fully running but at this point there doesn’t seem to be a reason and there will be zero arguments I would assume from early investors to have less supply. Many things have been promised or tweeked over the course of the project. No reason this couldn’t be another one.

For the (greedy) owners of MaidSafeCoin maybe. And is it really investing? You’re making current MaidSafeCoin owners richer, but MaidSafe doesn’t have that much MaidSafeCoins.
If the MaidSafeCoin owners get a bigger percentage of the (live) SafeCoins (because less of them), then there is less for potential farmers, app builders and core developers. And you need these to have a successful, functional network.
Here you’ve a bigger percentage of the total cake:
small
Here you’ve more cake:
big

2 Likes

The amount of coins don’t really matter for developers and farmers as long as the coin is divisible. It’s the price of the coin that matters in the end as it would be more lucrative for a developer to have 1 coin worth $100 rather than 100 coins worth 25 cents. And greed is part of every great invention, that’s what makes it worth it. If it wasn’t for greed, farmers and developers would be hard to attract.

No, it isn’t.
(20 characters)

The idea is indeed to make the coin divisible.

To avoid misunderstandings: you want to see a decrease of the total of 4.3 billion SafeCoins and

  1. The amount of the current 15% = 644 million MaidSafeCoin to stay the same in SafeCoin, so that the percentage increases to more than 15%?
    or
  2. one MaidSafeCoin should be converted to something less than a Safecoin, so that the 15% part stays the same?
    Because, assuming the same total market cap in both cases, in case 1) the (greedy) potential app builders and core developers are less motivated.

We must consider demand as well as supply though. If demand doubles while supply only increases by 50%, the price will still increase.

Granted, SAFECoin supply will be more nuanced and will have a relationship with demand, but that is one if the factors which make this coin interested and should provide a dampening effect. However, as we get closer to release and subsequently post release, I would expect demand to ramp up substantially.

2 Likes

It’s so easy to add content, apps, and pages to the SAFE Network that adoption will be fast. That means more coins get spent on storage and burned, putting the brakes on inflation and total coins in circulation. Others will hold. Others still will spend SAFE as a currency in a developing metaeconomy. Those use cases add more value. The cryptoeconomy clearly shows that prices rises due to speculation and even real use cases can increase way faster than inflation. SAFE will have dynamic equilibrium and may go through strong waves of inflation and deflation through the adoption cycle. Why is that shocking? This is exactly what is really happening to venture capital sponsored companies albeit they publish a fixed price calculated on the last round of investment. Those prices don’t float on public markets. They would do the same thing in terms of radical waves through the adoption cycle.

The 1987 US stock market crash was like $500B and it was HUGE. Just these little blips in the market the past few days are several Trillions. $20,000 MAID might seem ridiculous now, even improbable considering market capitalization of asset groups, etc., but this is very short-sighted in terms of what history shows over decades. $100 is naive; way to small for the value proposition. The human mind is not capable of exponential thinking, that’s why most people haven’t figured out the miracle of compounding interest.

9 Likes

I’m not sure the mechanics matter but I would prefer to see a decrease in total potential supply as to make each coin hold more valuable. Essentially a preemptive buyback or a reverse stock split style transaction. At this point with things still to be figured out within the safe coin itself as long as the supply equals what has been outset to the Omni token, it truly doesn’t matter again assuming divisabilty is handled.

The lost of faith in knowing that the developers are bendable to peripheral financial considerations wouldn’t be worth it.

1 Like

In some ways I agree but their isn’t enough people to please at this point in time and as long as the total potential supply never changes once launch happens again it doesn’t matter but point well taken.

2 Likes

Just seeing this now, but max coins I read is not necessarily guaranteed to be reached, since the safecoin ecosystem will be more dynamic than that. Also, Bitcoin isn’t even a good, or much of any, currency, when comparing the constituents of safecoin’s potential. $20,000 is impossible, but seeing $100 per safecoin is easily in the realm of possibility with the fact that Bitcoin, a literal prototype of safecoin, reached the equivalent market cap, additionally especially considering the time it takes to reach 10% inflation will be years down the road, even not all at once.

4 Likes

Just thought I would jump in here and throw in my 2c for @warz who IMHO put thought and effort in.

As I understand it (and please correct me if I have this wrong), the initial inflation in the network will be
the result of successful network use (e.g. stored data being demanded). The driver will be the mining success rate times the fraction of coins remaining, and it will be necessary to tune this ‘success rate’ well at launch. But it also has another critical factor… the rate of cost/store (deflation) versus supply will be modulated against available storage. In other words, there is a second factor in net inflation that is directly correlated with useful network adoption.

All current investors are (should be) aware of this dynamic. We are paying the salaries to build the code, but we still need to pay the people who provide the hardware and bandwidth to launch the functional product, and these people are already an indispensable polity. As part of my investment/support strategy, I will have a number of powerful nodes and a high bandwidth connection ready to go on day one, hoping (alongside altruistic motives) to take down my piece of this initial gold rush - by providing low latency, high bandwidth nodes getting the network off to a good start.

There are a few scenarios on how it may play out - and one key is that download demand and space required are somewhat independent variables. Will the network be used to store family photos? Or to run a youtube clone? In some scenarios, there may be some profitable trading after launch :wink:

In the end, in my analysis the initial setting of farming success rate will balance the interests of the ‘angel investors’ (us) versus the hardware providers. The inflation will blunt price appreciation, it is true, but everyone should already be aware that this isn’t a crypto project that can function without a metric crap ton of engagement on the hardware/network provisioning side, and these people need to be paid. I am confident that (almost regardless of the initial setting for farming success rate), that the inflation rate will end up mirroring the adoption of the network, and the value of adoption should outpace the inflation. So if I had to make a prediction, we won’t see a ridiculous price spike a la bitcoin, but if the network is adopted, it will see a relentless grind upwards towards the value of the network use. Even with full (x10) inflation, this is an asymmetric bet at current price with any sort of real world use.

3 Likes

I disagree because when safecoin is introduced there is 15% existing. So on day 0 it is either 0 increase or infinity increase depending on if you start with zero coins or the 600 odd million coins. 600 odd million coins will exist when safecoin is introduced and everyone knows this so there is no change on day 0.

Then there could be negative number of coins to say 250 million coins increase in the first year. So an increase of negative%age to 38% increase of the number of coins. This is because coins have to be spent before rewards can be given. Then rewards are small until there is plenty of data for people to be requesting some of it.

Have you factored in to your calculations that the total coins existing will decrease significantly for the first few months and then start increase slowly before reaching some sort of steady increase (if steady is feasible)

So in year 1 the increase could be miniscule and is the reason we needed the kickstart of the 10% available for immediate spending and the 5% that is reserved for early investors is locked up till the early investors want to exchange their investment for coins. And that is unlikely since it’d be a loss at first.

BS, that was not anything like an attack. It was not directed at you nor where you thought of in that statement. It was directed at unidentified people who had not done their homework, nor is it an attack. Saying shame on some unidentified or identified person is not attacking. This is the argument of a troll, please do not do it. And that is not a personal attack either, it is asking you not to do that,

Yep and that is how long ago they were talking about it. BTW it was still up in 2016 or 2017 so a couple of years.

The reason I can say some things are wrong is that the algorithm will incorporate some things but its that we don’t yet know to what extend some things will be. My main complaint was about your original reasoning that the majority of the coins would be existing very early, but now that you have changed/moderated that view it is no longer relevant. Yes and a bit was my misreading a later post.

BTW when you say inflation of the coin it suggest a decrease in its intrinsic value and is why some have not liked your posts. The SAFECOIN will not lose any intrinsic value since that is in the network and is used to buy resources. If any value is lost or gained it is in the fiat value.

This is what I meant by the coin being a utility coin. For the SAFE network safecoin’s value is what it can do for “you” in the network and in that its value does not change because of the number of coins. If there is any change then it changes because of the amount of available space on the network. That really is a perceived change.


tl;dr
Due to the need for the network to have data before it can give farming rewards then my opinion is that there will be small growth in the number of safecoins in the first year. There might be plenty of rewards given but that is offset by the number of coins spend and destroyed. Maybe 250 million coins given in rewards and then 200 or 250 or 300 million spent/destroyed. This results in a small change in the number of coins existing.

2 Likes

Remember its not just coins being created, but also destroyed. For the network to be successful it needs plenty of data to be stored. Not everything stored will be read.

So there will be a period where the balance is negative coin growth as data is being stored before it can be read. How long this lasts will depend on adoption and could be a few weeks or many months.

2 Likes

This part (even if the numbers are different) is really important. Data has to be uploaded before it can be demanded, and this will be anywhere from powerfully to minorly deflationary at first, depending on the initial storage space commitment. On a successful launch, one of my first moves will be to upload a copy of vital family documents (approx 1Tb), that have some chance of never being read. It will take time for download volume to outpace uploads, and this could be a long time if the network is expanding

Beat me by a few seconds. Tried to encapsulate it with ‘[deflation] another factor in net inflation’, but your formulation is clearer

4 Likes