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

You are absolutely right. It would help, if we could get some comment on this from Maidsafe.

My own view is that the whitepaper isn’t based on the most recent discussion and views. It is not aware of the “inner workings” of the Safecoin and thus cannot be correct. I’m also not sure if we can ever know what the rate of new coins will be in any given timeframe, since it is so dependent on how people use the network.


I gather they are working on an updated whitepaper now:


Hi Warz, thanks for your thought provoking posts.

Some comments:

Bitcoin, Ethereum et al. (projects all still in early adopter phase of the S-Curve btw) do not have instant private transfer of value, two features that Safecoin will have given everything goes according to the spec. As hard examples of what may come to pass, see the few recent coins that have attempted to hack even just one of these Safecoin features into a public blockchain. Most like zcash have experienced robust growth (in users base and fiat monetary value) in a very short amount of time. Safecoin will go one step further with both more comprehensive privacy than anything that has come before, near instant transfers and no transfer fees (perhaps - we will see). As so far there has been no major technical barrier and reliable progress towards this goal then I agree that there will be an up hill battle, but it will be the public blockchain projects attempting to catch upto Safe Network - not the other way around. As an aside, the Safe Network will also securely and anonymously store data in the worlds first autonomous permissionless network - the developer need for this cannot be understated. Trying to yardstick off the existing permissioned centralised and expensive cloud service file hosting market (all two of them) is like estimating the size and demand for the internet in 1991 based off the market size of Microsoft and IBM, IMO.

On inflation, I am getting the vibe you consider it a negative to owning MaidSafeCoin as an investment :

Early massive Inflation of Crypto-currencies == lower prices/bad for early investors is not supported by most of the big name cryptocurrency projects examples that we have so far. As you say “If nobody is using the invention it’s essentially valueless.” Agreed. However without massively inflating the supply and getting it into as many hands a possible, then the project at worse will be dead in the water and essentially valueless. At best looking forward to a very slow grind growth rate on the back of a few early investors that hold the utility coin, in spite of the superior tech. BTC mining’s asymptotic exponential inflation in the early days, air drops (aka massive early inflation) and many more examples abound in the crypto space - what matters is stimulating the all important network effect using massive early inflation to fuel that productive growth in the most organic and distributed manner possible.

To expand on this using Cryptoasset Monetary Inflation convenient list:

We have Inflation for

blockchain security (in Safe's case, autonomous network security)

participation correctness

protocol-level development incentivization

Redistribution and incentivization

It would be helpful if you clarify more about exactly what type of inflation your against, or perhaps you only see “bad” inflation in this project Vs all the others that have come before?
So far your argument appears to be solely from a sound money perspective.


Are you talking MAID or BTC or warz discussion?

p.s. @warz the benefit of massive early coin inflation is to protect the network, and your data, from an attack vector where a few malevolentor greedy whales/sharks kill the system when it is in it’s infancy. This is a good thing for people that actually want to use their MAID to buy network resources for data security and not just speculate.

All of the above.

I simply call for the devs’ distribution schedule decisions to be consulted with economists and other non-devs who know wtf they’re talking about rather than just some arbitrary s-curve schedule. I don’t doubt that many have already looked at biomemtic examples to get ideas about what solutions to this type of problem have worked in nature. It’s game theory at the end of the day, balancing incentives. Early adopters need to be rewarded in the short-term. This community is what will drive adoption, not just price or great tech. That said, the network needs adoption by incentivizing newcomers, nodes need to secure the network, etc. Some inflation, particularly in the short-term will be necessary. I don’t think it will outpace growth though, particularly since the coins can be burned. We’ve come this far, and I’m sure that the Maidsafe team is aware of the different challenges. Not sure what the big freak out is all about…


This is an excellent point of course. But as of now, safecoin is vaporware. Will it work out how you say? Maybe, but I have many doubts and concerns in that regard. I choose not to speculate too much on that right now since I don’t have any clear information that can convince me it will work or not. If safenet manages to pull of launch already in 2020-2021 both lightning network and sidechains including privacy enchantment will have had a lot of time to develop on bitcoin and ethereum. Instant transactions is already a thing, privacy is being worked on. 2-4 years is an eternity in crypto and maid will have a whole lot of “catching up” to do, so to speak.

Really? Do you have examples? If we look at zcash, it stared out with small supply and then inflated heavily. The price went to 3200 BTC per coin and has dropped consistently since then, now down to 0.018, a 99.999% price drop in terms of BTC value since peak. This is not very encouraging for investors. It’s better imo with the opposite effect: steadily increasing prices (such as with bitcoin). Then you have something to look forward to, and reason to acquire, rather than having to see new lows being set all the time. I would rather not have to sell my MAID on a launch peak to buy back lower due to constrained supply and heavy inflation later, but as it is today, that might be required to preserve the purchasing power.

Agreed. However without massively inflating the supply and getting it into as many hands a possible , then the project at worse will be dead in the water and essentially valueless.

I agree that it’s better to inflate, but it could be argued that this does not require a “massive inflating supply” but instead can happen through trading. Ethereum has been pretty successful despite the ICO putting tokens in relatively few hands to start with (roughly 60% of current supply in fact).

For the record I’m not arguing against this inflation or suggesting to have it removed. I am merely trying to make people recognize its effect on the market.

BTC mining’s asymptotic exponential inflation in the early days, air drops (aka massive early inflation) and many more examples

I wouldn’t say BTC is a good example in this regard. By the time the major price rally began it had already inflated a lot. Being the first was also an advantage. Also BTC didn’t start with a set supply and then jump to big inflation like maid will.

It would be helpful if you clarify more about exactly what type of inflation your against, or perhaps you only see “bad” inflation in this project Vs all the others that have come before?
So far your argument appears to be solely from a sound money perspective.

Yes, I most certainly like the idea of sound money, and safecoin will be that since the cap is fixed at 4.3 billion and is not going to inflate further. That will eventually result in deflation, and I’m very pleased with that.

But I’m trying to make sense of the markets rather than oppose anything specifically. As far as I’m concerned the rules are already set and I don’t want them changed to better the position of investors. Some may consider doing so a breach of contract.

I’m not here first to make money, but because I want to see the current web replaced with one where there is no censorship. This is ideologically very important to me and I think, for the future of humanity.

Therefore my own financical incentives comes second hand. That’s not to say I’m disinterested in it, because one of my biggest interests is speculation and it is how I make my living. I may in fact allocate more funds to other projects where I see a better short term potential; let’s say running up to the launch of maid or shortly after when hype is peaking out. It’s pretty irrelevant to me personally what the inflation will be, I’m just observing reality and adapting to it. But not knowing the facts makes it hard to make predictions, see?

I also wanted (in my first post here) to settle down the expectations to realistic levels, with the $20,000 prediction that started this whole charade being an example of what I consider unrealistic. I understand it’s swearing in church to not be super bullish always, and I get a lot of hate for that in many communities, but my trading history has proven me right time and time again. Money talks, bullshit walks, as I like to say.

1 Like

free Philo

RFC 0012 (12-10-2015) is the latest document describing safecoin. The whitepaper is outdated.

Will be good to see an emission schedule based on rfc 0012.

It explains farming rate, but it doesn’t address the emission rate.

1 Like

Good to see insightful, passionate discussions :+1: just as long as we’re not getting mad at each other.

I remember talking about these things many years ago on here. Thought they’d be out by now tho, instead of continued talks :cry:

One point I remember was SafeCoin divisibility

Saying they weren’t technically divisible but instead were more like interchangeable for other smaller currencies, like WoW handles Gold, Silver and Copper coin currencies to make transactions. Since one SafeCoin needs to be fully spent for a PUT, but real-world transactions won’t always perfectly fit into PUT multiples of value :rofl:

The rest seems like semantics, and different (but equally valid) ways of looking at the same thing.

I kinda lean towards @neo 's perspective on the “50% inflation day 1 isn’t really inflation because it’s already priced in by those who bought early on and hold the majority of current coins” issue, because those early investors whose coins are coming into circulation probably have a deep personal connection with the team and vision and I can’t imagine people like that just dumping day 1, when it finally exists and the majority of risk is removed.

Just thoughts :+1:

Launch :pray::pray: :rocket:


Just to try and clarify (at risk of going off topic), as far as I understand it, a single safecoin will buy a pool of mutations/PUTs


All crypto currency projects have massively inflated their supplies in the first year, starting with bitcoin.

See a few major ccurrency project charts:

Note that most start measuring inflation rate at 50% and omit first year inflation rate, as it naturally “off the charts”. The question to ask is: Has the project been able to get the newly inflated supply into the hands of the maximum number of users possible or not in a distributed organic way that drives network effects and adoption.

I would flip this around: Without inflation there would be little to no users. I am interested to know of one successful project that has not had off the chart inflation in its first year’s (say, above 6% generally considered a high inflation rate in traditional investment circles)?

If we measure any investment (especially crypto currency investments) from maximum peak to trough we are bound to be disappointed. Zcash (with it’s 350% first years of inflation) is based on just one advancement: a slightly more private coin (theoretically, the jury is still out on that), they massively inflated their supply in the first year with 600%+ more to come over next few years. Has it been a bad investment? Depends where you bought in of course. Is it a successful project? I do not know coinmarketcap says it has 92 million USD in daily transactions which sounds like it might be a useful project, maybe… until the Safe Network launches that is :slight_smile: .

If you look back through this thread and similar far enough, there are “predictions” from 0 to the moon… typical cryptocurrency daydreaming I would not take it too seriously.

There are however a lot of controversy and caveats that come with instant off chain scaling - most importantly the privacy and centralisation trade offs inherent in the methods used. Then there is transactions per second limits on public blockchains which Safe Network’s parsec consensus can theoretically blow out of the water - there is just no way a blockchain will be able to compete, even those highly centralised “EOS” - style projects. As you say - vaporware(ish) at this point but if you get into the nitty gritty of the tech - code is being delivered, most major roadblocks have been overcome and the progress is consistent and solid.

I would encourage a read of “The Sound Money Argument” section on the previous reference I linked. A quote, (emphasis mine):

A side-result of the sound-money and digital-gold theses, which have been a recurring narrative throughout Bitcoin’s existence, is the general sentiment that — all things being the same — scarcity is good (from an investment perspective) for a given cryptoasset. This belief has driven many of the discussions behind removing or reducing the block reward for Ethereum over the last two years.

Such beliefs are driven by Ether (and other crypto asset) investors having an understandable aversion to dilution of their investment in Ether. However, as we’ve shown, monetary inflation has different roles in different cryptoasset networks; if the case for inflation (through the economic value created by security and participation improvement) outways the negative effect of dilution, then the ‘price-supportive’ argument against inflation is weakened.


There’s a major difference. Massive inflation in the beginning is fine. But when you have a starting supply, a base and THEN massive inflation it’s a completely different matter. Bitcoin didn’t start out with 2.1 million coins that were held for 4-6 years among early adopters before it started inflating like what happens with maidsafe. That’s where the issue is.

This could be one of the reasons why there is not more interest in maid currently. Early adopters are not rewarded, in fact they are to be completely diluted. What you’re left with is the people who are interested in maid mainly for the technology and perhaps a few delusional “investors”. Although the market has spoken and is pricing maid more fairly now, as in: despite the big inflation it’s not a bad time to buy. Still a bit high of a price for my taste, but it may be acceptable given the speculative nature of crypto.

Blockchains can’t compete in terms of transaction volume, but I would argue that in terms of security they can. That said, if safecoin is proven to be secure and can transact with no limitations that’s a big advantage, but does something prevent bitcoin from using maidsafe as a sidechain ? If so, I would be more comfortable with storing long term holdings in the main chain of bitcoin and use the maidsafe network for small transactions.

No disagreements there. Gold also has inflation despite being sound money. There’s no disconnect there. Initial inflation (or distribution if you will) is perfectly fine and valid.

I am not sure why this is an issue? All early bitcoin went to a handful of wallets - this could be argued as a worse start from a distribute widely point of view (but understandable given it was the first so lets ignore BTC). In the same vein many projects start out with an instant large air-dropped base and then add massive inflation on top, staging all sorts of marketing stunts and practically giving coins away. All the obnoxious “accredited investor” ICO’s also mostly fall into this category - large starting supply with mining issuance rates similar to bitcoin’s massive early inflation. Some make for good project and others have dismal idea that was doomed to failure. I really do think it is much more important that the coin/utility token is widely distributed to those that will form a nascent economy around a genuinely useful innovative project that feeds back into network effects and drives adoption forward.

Or it could be that this project is still mostly “vaporware” and so potential investors/speculators can get better ROI elsewhere. Also the project marketing is pretty low key still, it has been mentioned that this will pick up as more components are delivered and people actually have something more concrete to install and play with (Vaults and testSafeCoin).

This is another reason for the tepid reception to Safe Network: It is unproven tech unlike blockchain based projects. The natural reaction is to just not trust it until it has proven itself.

Or both delusional investor and in it for the tech :slight_smile:. Totally agree however.


Outstanding. I’m glad that’s sorted. Your fingers must be tired from all the posting you’ve done. Good job wrapping it up finally.


Bitcoin had already minted roughly half of the coins before the big price run in 2013. That means early adopters held 50% of the coins at the time. At that point the inflation was already significantly reduced. Maid on the other hand distributes only 10% of the supply, then waits 4-6 years before quickly over 10 years spewing out 98% of the supply. People who bought in to maid will lose the early adopter advantage, while the bitcoin investor didn’t. Same principle applies to other coins, large inflation in the beginning is good, it’s an incentive for early adopters to acquire when the prices are cheap. But maid is NOT having large inflation in the beginning, it’s putting out 10%, then zero inflation for 4-6 years before we get a sudden rush and complete dilution of the initial base investors.

Year     #bitcoins       Inflation per annum
2009     1,624,250          -
2010     5,020,250        209.1%
2011     8,001,400         59.4%
2012    10,733,825         34.1%
2013    12,199,725         13.7%
2014    13,671,200         12.1%
2015    15,029,525          9.9%
2016    16,075,400          7.0%
2017    16,750,400          4.2%  (estimate)  
2018    17,425,400          4.0%  (estimate)  
2019    18,100,400          3.9%  (estimate)  
2020    18,575,200          2.6%  (estimate, halvening)
2021    18,912,700          1.8%  (estimate)
2022    19,250,200          1.8%  (estimate)
2023    19,587,700          1.8%  (estimate)
2024    19,806,350          1.1%  (estimate, halvening)
2025    19,975,100          0.9%  (estimate)
2026    20,143,850          0.8%  (estimate)
2026    20,312,600          0.8%  (estimate)

Yes. Anyone who steps out of line and disagrees with the bullish mantra must be an troll wanting to buy at lower prices. You figured it all out thc, good job!

1 Like

Great! And remember, if you do want to learn more about any of this on your own, there have been MANY discussions on this forum over the years, all happily archived.

You have yapped incessantly all weekend and you now want to convey contempt? You are a little rascal, aren’t you?