MaidSafeCoin (MAID) - Price & Trading topic


I totally agree with warz regarding Safecoin’s potential future price.

Personally I’d also be more than happy to see $10 in the future. Imagining astronomical future prices is just day dreaming.

The way to stay grounded in this price prediction area is to always consider the market cap necessary to support such a price.


Some people will let humans dictate their currency policy, have fun kids.

I would rather let the SAFE Network dictate my monetary policy. SAFEcoin it’s value is PUTs as simple as that.

As for fiat currency take “to the moon” literately on this one :crazy_face:

Amazon’s aws runs half the web, the decentralized and autonomous version of this is…



It is funny how everyone cof us is biased with expectations about future price of Safe Coin. The cool part is, there is so many ways how this coin can get value. I personally think that the real value is not in mining, storage costs etc. I expect Safecoin to be no 1. anonymous store of value. Current fiat currencies are very bad store of value. You can’t hold them without losing value. You can’t send and spend them without paying taxes and big fees. You can’t hide them. You can’t be anonymous billionaire. So I expect Safecoin as the only real anonymous coin to be the best candidate to be store of value for rich people. Black market is another value pumper. Not talking about tax free services using safecoin. And from the legal part of the business, microtransactions are the cure for current internet. Safe coin can became standart currency for micropayments on old Internet even without big success as new Internet. Coin itself thanks to its properties can easily eat all cryptocoin market cap in few years.


The idea that if Maid delivers all of these different ways to use the technology and the ceiling is $10 is more irrational than saying it will be $1000. I think people relcuctant to make bolder predictions and rather be short than long. At full supply what is 40 billion in the world market place? Literally nothing. There is so much liquidity, assets like the real estate market ect. all tied up and an autonomous internet with its own currency, storage, privacy ect. Is worth 40 billion and that’s assuming all the coins are released? It all needs to be delivered but this $10 high water mark is plain dumb.


Guys, I will just say one thing.

You all should read with more attention, @warz made many good points, and then he got many answers that were off the mark, personal attack by @neo included. Then he started to write in a more reactive/confronting way.

What I want to point out, is that if you read the text more carefully then you will understand better both parties, and avoid unnecessary confusion.

And yes, the original enthusiastic @Zoki comment was absolutely delusional, but he made it in a innocent way like a child would speak about his favorite candy, and wasn’t a serious prediction.

About Safecoin supply, there will be an initial (very brief) deflationary period as users store data, and then a sustained inflation as users browse the net. There may be deflationary moments with the launch of video streaming services and such, but probably each big upload will mean big downloads afterwards, and inflation of course.

Bitcoin has been very inflationary in the first years, and yet it increased in value exponentially, because adoption had a stronger effect on the price. As long as we have an adoption growth rate superior to the inflation we should see a price increase. If it is the other way around… Well, it has been nice knowing you :slight_smile:

Two more things:
At current prices buying safecoin is the equivalent of buying bitcoin when it was 40$ the piece.
there is around half safecoin per human 4.2B/7B

Love you all and no hard feelings please


I guess those of us who are happy with maidsafes progress, are confident the algo will be witten taking these concerns into account.

Until then its all just hot air.


It is deleted, that is destroyed, becomes non-existent. A bit like python’s parrot.

The address that the coin existed at becomes available for a new coin to be created randomly or never again depending on (pseudo) random events with farming.

Farming rewards come from the network’s own store of “non-existing coin” addresses.

There is no direct or closely linked relationship between people spending coins to PUT and farmers being paid. For one, people spend a coin to by a “PUT Balance” so the spending of coins does not mean 1 coin’s worth of PUTs is immediately used. For some users who send emails and respond occasionally to forums might take a year or more to use that coin’s worth of PUTs

The relationship is very loose, all it means is that the network has more empty addresses from which to issue coins. For instance the network could go for years without any more coins being spent (assuming data was PUT previously using existing coins)


I was getting at the unsustainable claim of how fast the issuance of the remaining coin will be. Even reinforced by the claim of 50% in the first year. As this is contrary to the design goals of safecoin then I responded to that in blunt terms.

The issue of 20K per coin, well that is a different matter and I don’t think its happening anytime soon or ever and some good points were made on both sides of the argument. But as to the rate of issuance of coins, then there has been a lot of discussions and clear goals of the project stated. And so I can clearly refute the claims being made by some individuals.

I am sorry you saw it as a personal attack instead of attacking the points and due to the lack of reading on the matter.


Agree. In the end, the market will value it and I’m intrigued with what the number will be annually for the next decade


Is it really a “new” coin if it has the same address as an “old” coin? A coin and an address have 1:1 correspondence. Given that property it’s the same coin placed back into circulation, since it has the same “name” or id.


It is new because the “new” coin is not being used for anything linked to by the spending of that coin. I.E. its not a coin that is paid to PUT then directly used to pay those farmers that retrieve the data that the coin paid for the PUTing of.

The only relation to the address is that address space is use to limit the total number of coins. They could have an 128bit address space and some method of ensuring only 2^32 coins can exist. And obviously some method of incorporating scarcity would be needed to.


The network used/spent that coin to purchase a GET or GETs from a farmer.


NO. The GETs rewarded are not on those chunks that were PUT by the spending of the coin at that address. Its a conceptual thing really and the reuse of an address is a technical method of limiting coins to 2^32 (and see the edit I wrote above)


Yes, I understand the process fully. My comment didn’t say that a client spent the coin for some PUTs which the network handed off to a farmer “hand to mouth”. I was pointing out that from the network’s perspective it spends its coin(s) on GETs as needed. So your “new” coin is being used for something linked to the spending of that coin, ie. spending by the network instead of a client. And if that coin has the same ID as a coin that was previously spent by a client for a PUT at some time in the past, then your definition above proves my point that it is not really a “new” coin, but the “same” coin.

From this point of view, “new” coins would only be those coins distributed to MAID holders at launch to seed the network economics, or those instantiated the very first time an address is used by the network to reward a farmer. These are minor definition/semantic details, but I think it’s important to debate, just like the misuse of the term “burn”.

EDIT: Not sure if any of this is relevant if Fraser’s alternative method is used.


Its how you define “new”

New is one of those words like perfect. You can turn arguments into anything almost.

The coin is new for the purposes of the algorithm.

As I said the algorithm could use a 128 bit address space with a mechanism to both limit number of coins to 2^32 and to incorporate the scarcity element. The algorithm still works the same and for the span of human life time no address is reused.

So I disagree with even your unintended use of the word “new” for the purposes of the network workings.

On the other hand its like saying in a program language where you have a “New Object” statement. Now for the purpose of the program the object is new, but in fact it has reused memory that was previously used for something else and that could even have been for the same object in a previous run of the program. So in SAFE it sees each coin created as “New” in the true sense, but for technical reasons like the program example the coin resides at the same address as a coin that was destroyed. Now this is made more clear by my example above where a 128 address space could have been used but limit # coins to 2^32

tl;dr And of course this is starting to sound like splitting hairs over termology


Misrepresenting what I said is another form of personal attack. But whatever, I will go straight to the cold hard facts:

For this calculation I will use the approximated total supply of 4.3 billion listed in white paper:

“It is anticipated that 4.3 billion coins will be produced during the life of the network”

4.3 billion / 20 years is 215 million coins / year. Current supply is 450 million. What’s
450 + 215 million in percent inflation? 47.7%.

I did some more digging and while the safecoin whitepaper does not mention emission rate, the old paper from 2014 does mention something of interest:

“Unlike gold, which only increases at circa 1.5% per annum, the quantity of safecoin will initially burgeon. This is akin to the California gold rush, where the quantity of gold grew quickly with enthusiastic miners. In safecoin this is mirrored by the network building to the stage where it is protecting all of the world’s data. During that time the mining frequency will be exponentially decreasing.”

“Burgeon” for those unfamiliar means “begin to grow or increase rapidly; flourish.”

It’s established that the coins are to be mostly distributed by the 20 year mark, but let me quote from the paper:

With the proposed mining procedure (and assumptions) it is estimated that half the total volume will issued during the first 5 years, with 95% issued after 10 years

Now sadly this is even worse than I thought. I can do the math for you again:
(4.3 * 0.95) / 10 is 408 million per year on average. Note that current supply is 450 million, and we will be getting 408 million new coins a year on average for 10 years after launch.

There’s only estimates in the paper, however it’s clear to me that we are going to see the most heavy inflation in early stages, as this graph confirms:

An estimate is also made that shows this:

While 2% coin supply is only 86 million coins. 19% inflation is still pretty steep. But it gets worse, much worse:

To reward investors and developers involved during the early stages of this project, it is proposed that 30% of all safecoins will be injected into the network on day 1. Up to 10% will be available for purchase via the crowd sale, 5% for the existing MaidSafe investors, 5% for the SAFE core development team and 10% for the general developer pool.

Is these coins going to be available for sales? 5% + 5% ? That’s 100% inflation year 1, without counting the coins farmed. Even if only 5% (to devs) that’s still 50% inflation.

Final remark:

“half the total volume will issued during the first 5 years”

We’re talking 430 million coins per year. This is a massive equity dilution of crowdsale participants and very quickly so.

I rest my case


Yes I am sorry the 50% figure from your very later post was increase in # of coin and not 50% total.

But you did say, which I quoted you earlier where you said most coins will be existing early on and were dismissive of people saying the 90% will take a long time to be issued.

But now by your last post I see you have changed the argument into realistic figures that is much closer to what is expected and I agree that there “could” be an increase of 80 to 250 million coins in the first year.

But there can also be a much smaller increase in the first year since the data has to be first uploaded before any significant gets can be done. Also it costs more to PUT a chunk then the average reward for retrieving a chunk will be. So the net rate could equally be a reduced number of coins for a few months, even 6 or more depending on what people are uploading. For instance people could start uploading their song/movie collections to their private or public files.

So NO, you cannot claim “case closed” on a 50% increase in number of coins existing.

A few points you might want to consider in your analysis

  • the number of coins existing could (yes could) be decreasing for a while, even many months or a few weeks - who knows, but there is a strong case for a period of decrease.
  • the initial coins existing will be 15% so your calculations for so-called inflation, need to be adjusted.
  • increase in so-called miners in the graph does not equate to increase in rate of coin issuance. The coin issuance is related to the number of chunks being retrieved and the amount of available space. There is a indirect connection with the number of farmers because more farmers typically mean more space available which drives down the issuance rate. So in fact too many farmers will result in low coin issuance rates.
  • I am lost as to what you are actually trying to say this coin increase will do. If its to refute the $20,000 per coin (or other huge figure) then I am in agreement. As to what the price will be I don’t know, but not the imaginative figures some say.
  • the proposed 30% does not exist anymore and has been mentioned a number of times. There is the 10% from presale and 5% reserved for earlier investors. So a total of 15% of coins existing on day 1. Most here know this and will have factored this into any calculations they have personally done.
  • The example of bitcoin shows that even with total coin supply increasing steadily, the overall long term price can also increase by large amounts. (Note its an example and safecoin may or may not be similar)


This is a much better response. Thank you.

The 50% figure was just an example. My argument is related to 430 million coins coming out every year on average for 5 years. If you have 10% inflation first year then you need to have a lot more inflation in the following 4 years. It’s not that important if the first year has less inflation than the subsequent years, my argument is based on dilution of crowdsale participants and the fact that by the time we reach year 5 we will be massively diluted and by year 10 completely diluted.

Massive inflation as such could have a negative impact on price versus no inflation (or deflation). And since the inflation is very heavy early on, the launch hype may settled down with a long period of depression due to the huge supply coming into the market.

the initial coins existing will be 15% so your calculations for so-called inflation, need to be adjusted.

That’s roughly 195 million more coins than currently exists. 195 million coins extra is 43% inflation on day 1, not counting the farming. (again, the first year isn’t important in my analysis, just saying)

increase in so-called miners in the graph does not equate to increase in rate of coin issuance. The coin issuance is related to the number of chunks being retrieved and the amount of available space. There is a indirect connection with the number of farmers because more farmers typically mean more space available which drives down the issuance rate. So in fact too many farmers will result in low coin issuance rates.

Good point. But the table with the estimates confirms the rate.

The example of bitcoin shows that even with total coin supply increasing steadily, the overall long term price can also increase by large amounts. (Note its an example and safecoin may or may not be similar)

It’s not fair to compare a mined coin like bitcoin to a crowdfunded coin like maidsafe. When bitcoin had reached mainstream the inflation was already very low. If inflation had been 12 million every year for 5 years i’m sure the priced would have suffered a lot more.

Year     #bitcoins       Inflation per annum
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)  


I find this discussion interesting. But I think it’s important to use accurate terms and generally be as accurate as possible so as to avoid misunderstandings. Safecoin will be “farmed” - not “mined”. Also, keep your cool, guys. :sunglasses:


If one has not factored this in their personal calculations then there is plenty of time to do that. The 15% on day 1 is better than what ICO people expected from the 30%.

So in fact this is a so called deflation from what people who did their homework in the ICO were expecting.

So are we arguing over terms?

Anyhow the current price of MAID should be factoring in the 15% on day 1 into the price. If they are not then shame on their research, but since it was discussed in Poloniex troll box when it existed then I expect most of the traders knew about it.

Yes but I was referring to the label in the graph supplied by the poster.

Old table and the discussions over potential negative growth of coins existing early on (and at times later on) had not been considered when that table was created. So I would argue it is out of date.

Anyhow at the end of the day you have set your views on this massive so called inflation where some others who have done their own research disagree. So for me I think at this stage we might have to agree to hold differing views on what may or may not happen in the first 3, 6 12 months.

Since the algorithms have not been finalised (actually barely started) then this is only discussions and until we get updated algorithms and test data its really conjecture. I am of the opinion that the so called inflation in year one will not be as you presented, but hey it could be if things change.

Also since safecoin is a utility coin used to actually buy tangible product then the price of the coin will not be like what has been experienced elsewhere. And as I said the bitcoin was only an example of what can happen.