MaidSafeCoin (MAID) - Price & Trading topic


#5675

@betterthantrav That’s just what I said :thinking: Not sure what you disagree with.


#5676

The concentration on 4+ billion coins means almost nothing. Reality will be based on adoption, retail use vs. commercial use and the burn rate in relation to how the coins are being used or are being held on to. Mass adoption to me would means 100 million+ users. Is that a crazy number? Maybe, but even at that 4 billion number (which shouldn’t happen for multiple decades) that’s 40 coins a person and although 20k sounds absurd, $100 is not even a blip on the radar.


#5677

I personally believe @warz brings up rational points across the board and maintains a more realistic goal than most based on real world evidence. So far the counter arguments to his points have been insufficient or personal attacks and guesses at best. I rather talk in terms of quantitative data and algorithms proving a point as opposed to the “I think” “Possibly” “maybe” “the potential for” talks.

@dirvine as this project has progressed and ideas become concrete are their any hard numbers or algorithms to counter the points @warz has brought up in all his comments above? Would love to hear your thoughts, if its beating a dead horse and you have covered this pretty extensively with real numbers, just a link to a prior quote of yours would be nice.

This whole SAFE coins being “burned” concept I disagree with. A coin is not burned if its given to the farmers that host the data(and I think it goes to more than just farmers too but still goes to some entity of the network). That farmer can turn around and convert that coin to USD or some other crypto immediately if he likes. I think the proper wording would be SAFE coin churning(the effect of PUT spenders to those hosting data, a transfer of coin wealth), but its still very present in the ecosystem not deleted(which is how I think of burned. Burned means deflationary, churn has no impact).


#5678

this is exactly what doesn’t happen - you pay the network for hosting data - the coin looses it’s owner and is burned

if nobody requests data and people only store to safe than safecoin is purely deflationary


#5679

It goes to the network but then where?, I have read Farmers get rewarded(In a lotto type manner correct, some % change of reward per storage), Application owners get rewarded, MaidSafe foundation gets a portion. What does it matter where it goes for the first hop?

EDIT so my chain does not get long. GETs are supposed to be free, PUTs are supposed to insert data and cost. requests are GETs correct and always free? What would something that is free(and spammable to a degree under a rate-limit throttle from a variety of hosts) dictate any relation on who gets paid?


#5680

if nobody requests data nobody gets paid - simple as that


#5681

voting is free and dictates which politicians get paid …? clicking at ads is free and dictates how much money the guy who wanted the ad to be displayed needs to pay … i don’t see an argument in the ‘why does the free action decide?’


#5682

Yes, the incorrect use of proper terminology is a problem. “Burn” is definitely the wrong word.

Spend : Purchase PUT storage from the network using safe coins so that they can eventually be recycled back to the farmers.

Earn : Receive safe coins from the network for storing PUTs and successfully fullfilling GET requests from the clients or other network functions. The coins originally spent on PUTs have been recycled and can be spent again by the new owners/farmers.

Burn : send coins to an account, then destroy the key that allows access to them either on purpose or by simply forgetting/losing the account password. The coins are lost forever.


#5683

It’s not given directly to the farmer, but in-directly. It’s just a delay before it’s transferred to someone else. Burning coins is supposed to be an irreversible action and this concept was first introduced in bitcoin as the action of sending bitcoin to an address where the private keys are unobtainable. And by the way, if nobody requests data on the network and nobody gets paid, how is the network supposed to be sustainable? The whole idea is for farmers to be rewarded on GET requests, if the coins do not enter the economy again, that’s a sign of maid dying.


#5684

my bad - yes - then it’s nut burned but spent as @jlpell said :thinking:

well - in the case of nobody requesting data it is not - and that would at the same time mean nobody is using safe … in which case the thing Should (!) die …


#5685

here we go … there is not enough coin for every single person on this planet to have a complete one …


#5686

@riddim You said that

and you also admit that it’s not sustainable:

Do you see the contradiction?

When maid turns deflationary the farming rewards increase to incentivize hosting, this increases inflation/supply and pressure on the price. That invalidates your argument.

It means something. It means we’re looking at potentially as much as 50% inflation the first year (if not more?) and is unlikely to experience less than 10% inflation for decades. For comparison countries usually target inflation rates like 2.5%. As an investor this is a valid concern. Right now there is nobody who can answer what inflation will be, people are making guesses but no clear algorithm with accompanying charted estimated has been presented. You can’t simply ignore the economic facts that inflation entails.

Second, inflation is just a small concern here. Why is 40 coins per person number relevant? Maid will need to be divisible long before then. You do realize the entire monetary supply of the world is $90.4 trillion right? Claiming that maid being worth $85.9 trillion is only a “brief stop” on the way up is not just hopelessly naive, it’s bordering deceptive.


#5687

Where are we at the moment ? Is fleming far away?


#5688

all i said was that safe is not sustainable in case it is not being used/needed by the world - and that’s perfectly okay imho

nobody will be able to answer this because we don’t know how the adoption curve will look like … that’s pure speculation …

may you have a look here and please specify what money exactly you are talking about …?


#5689

and there is 544 trillion invested in derivatives :roll_eyes: so how can there only be 90 trillion $ …?

…i don’t want to argue about 20k per coin or not … and honestly i don’t care … i’m not a speculator but just a follower of the project and i love the tech …

…but the numbers and how you present them seem to me to be taken a bit out of context …


#5690

That’s not all you said. First you responded to my comment where I said there’s inflation by stating:

Your first argument is contradicting your last. You can’t have it both ways. Which one is it?

You don’t need to know the adoption curve to answer the question. You can have a set emission rate algorithm where adoption is x and provide that curve.

See “Broad money” here: source

It’s not out of context. It’s real world valuations. You’re expecting safe to be worth more than all of the world’s companies, COMBINED, and you expect this valuation to be a “brief stop” before going much higher. It’s completely out of touch with any and all economic realities and those very basic comparisons should show that clearly.


#5691

did you seriously re-post the source that i mentioned myself as if it was a new source?

??? i never (!) did say that … but of course you can think whatever you want :wink:


yeah - sure - and the answer will be super realistic - let me help you here:

say adoption is pure storage - no GETs …

which leads me to deflation

?! no…? to my knowledge i never said something else - and safe would not be sustainable in that scenario - yes


but to respond with a more reasonable statement as well …

… as long as the safecoin-algorithm / farming algorithm isn’t agreed on and implemented there will be nobody who could tell you any supply-curve based on any demand-curve … so what you are asking for is nonsense at this point in time … sorry …

ps: oh - and have a nice life :slight_smile:


#5692

Another consideration is that it’s not set in stone that maidsafe will become successful in all areas, maidsafe can become a massive success with regards to file hosting and decentralized web, while at the same time fail spectaculary with regards to money. By the time of launch (2020? 2021?) cryptocurrencies will have had a lot of time to develop further. It’s going to be an enourmous uphill battle to compete with the early adopter advantage of giants such as bitcoin and ethereum at that point.

If the only use case for maid is a decentralized web the prices are more likely to be based on supply and demand for storage and those may not reach anywhere near the kind of valutions a currency is able to. Then even $100 may be unrealistic unless maid is able to capture a very large market share of that market.

For example the dedicated file hosting market in 2018 is less than 6 billion. We’re talking lower digits billions here. The entire cloud storage market was estimated to be $25.171 billion in 2017. What market cap does say 50% (which would be an enormous share) of that justify?

Derivatives is not the same as money (coins, deposit in bank etc), the source shows that.

Right. So for now we only know that it’s likely to inflate very heavily for a period of a few decades. Then we’re back to start of the argument.


#5693

So my first argument would be that bitcoin up until now would be considered deflationary no? So in that sense you are basing fiat currency that can be printed at will without controls to this or another crypto so not an even comparison. The 40 coins means nothing other than just showing how few coins a person would have at fully supply with 100 million users. That’s a ton of users but with true adoption over a decade it would be small. I’m not sure where you came up with the 85 trillion number but I didn’t say that. You can certainly argue that there will be more Han the current supply after launch if you would like but claiming that the market will be flooded haphazardly with coins after launch is equally deceptive.


#5694

There is a difference between money and currency. The vast majority of what this world’s population uses is currency.