This discussion show that you need to sell maid before launch safecoin
Actually I’ve said in the past that my opinion based on the rumour/news cycle that if you get it right then selling before safecoin exchange starts (or maybe just before safecoin implementation) then buying back during exchange might create a winfall profit for people.
BUT BUT BUT it very well may not do that too. It’d be a real gamble.
If the algo testing goes well, and all is completed succesfully.
A huge amount of farmed coins would in my eyes only equal a huge success.
Hopefully it would mean a large amount spent on puts / data stored and good adoption.
I just dont see a problem.
Right, so you confirm that inflation will be minimum 43% year 1, correct? In addition to that 43% comes any potential farming rewards.
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.
Once again you’re back to personal attacks. You really can’t help it, can you? You’re insinuate that I did not “do my homework” because I wasn’t aware of the distribution. The trollbox shut down years ago by the way. Do you expect people to look up the troll box log? or plow through thousands of forum posts with diffuse answers and guesstimates? Expecting this to be common knowledge without it being readily available in a short concrete paper is naive.
Isn’t this supposed to be a friendly atmosphere where we can ask questions, discuss and learn about safe? Or
is it a circle jerk where any criticism is to be shut down with personal attacks until they run of and leave you alone? This project still is very diffuse, most people don’t have time to read thousands of forum posts to get answer to their question. I realize there are still many unanswered questions and that’s fine, but you can be nice about it instead of using this elitist attitude.
More supply is inflation, even if it’s less inflation than originally planned, by the way.
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.
Good to know that “people who have done their research” disagrees. I guess we can close the case then and never mention this again. Right? Is that what you want? Or can you actually give a solid argument as to why inflation of 430 million coins per year does not negatively impact the price?
(you’re talking about the first 12 months, I’m talking about the first 5 years)
So you essentially don’t know anything yet. Why were you so passionately telling me I was wrong then, if it’s not even decided yet? Which one is it?
No one knows anything but everyone has on opinion over something no one knows. I know why i like reading this
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: https://safenetwork.tech/faq/#how-is-safecoin-distributed
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!
Sumed it up nicely Michael. My sentiments exactly. Just sit back and wait…
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.
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:
Here you’ve more cake:
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.
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
- The amount of the current 15% = 644 million MaidSafeCoin to stay the same in SafeCoin, so that the percentage increases to more than 15%?
- 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.
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.
Blend of Exchange and App Store
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.
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.