New Tokens on SAFE

Also, this is a good interview where we talk about such.

8 Likes

That’s the one. Hopefully that plus Fergish’s podcast will give some good ideas for your application.

4 Likes

This isn’t the way SAFEnetork will be working. There is not any “streaming nodes”.

The streaming will be coming from all the vault nodes** and the caching nodes that hold the content the end user is streaming. This one of the features of the SAFEnetwork, to spread the load across the “whole” network so that no one node is “ever” loaded down and the serving of the stream can involve parallel delivery if the streaming software preloads the stream.

** Remember that content is split and chunked then spread across XOR space so that in all likelyhood there will be no nodes in the network that hold more than one chunk of the content. And with 8 copies of each chunk there is in fact 8 vaults fighting to get the chunk to you the quickest.

4 Likes

Thanks for getting back. The streaming nodes I’m referring to basically do 2 things. One is to transcode the video streams pushed from video publishers. And second is to distribute the video feeds. We definitely want to take advantage of the SAFE vaults’ data distribution and load spreading abilities for the second part. But for video transcoding, those nodes need to run our specific media server. Guess it’s kinda similar to the sidechain approach for the bitcoin.

4 Likes

Great articles, am working on it. thanks @DavidMc0 and @fergish

1 Like

Not sure yet what would be the best way, but there are some discussions in these threads

https://safe.exchange/t/sd-structured-data-shares/104

3 Likes

Ok, let’s kick this topic.

@dirvine
Are there any new ideas/plans for supporting other tokens (in the core code) on the SAFE Network? Because Safecoin must still be developed, and it’s not sure if it will be based on the MutableData type. See Next step of safecoin algorithm design
So the new Safecoin design might take this new token feature into account then.

Security Token Offerings (STO) can get really big. Would be really nice to have the abillity to support this with the SAFE Network. It’s probably the only fully permissionless network that can scale this with realtime transactions.

4 Likes

The thing about tokens on SAFE is that most operations, and that would include token transactions, cost Safecoins. On the other hand, I think Safecoin transactions will not cost Safecoins so it will always have some advantage over any other tokens in this regard. It probably won’t be a very high barrier but I would still like if there was a generic layer to facilitate the creation and free transacting of user released tokens.

2 Likes

Maybe I missed the memo that says the only way to implement limiting is on a per-token basis. Or maybe, just maybe, it would be possible to have that counter count and limit all such free transactions, like you said :wink: You’re right it’s not necessary for adoption, but it would sure be a a) nice selling point, b) useful feature.

I’m on the fence about this, by the way. Ethereum does charge for code execution and if Safe will have some sort of a shared computation feature that could be used to implement tokens, it could adopt a similar payment model.

Bumping this thread again folks for a mini brainstorm, hoping someone can enlighten my thinking on this topic.

For the most part I’ve always considered “Saltcoins” (Altcoins on Safe) to be rather silly and have taken the position that it’s far simpler to just use SNT for any and all transactions. Now I am not so sure and could be convinced otherwise with the right argument with regard to a simple PtD mechanism. Anyone care to share other reasons as to why salts might be a good idea? (Other than a way to manage PtD for apps.)

5 Likes

Flexibility. You cannot just derive Safe Network Token at will or from some function you would like to incentivize. So ‘salts’ could have many different flavors and be derived or minted in many different ways that SN cannot. I still think Safe Network Token should be seen as not just the network utility token but as a more general medium of exchange. Just my take @jlpell

4 Likes

Project specific coins narrow incentives around that project. “Why wasn’t SAFE designed to do all payments in Bitcoin?” for example.

Yes, many different flavored salts to suit ones taste. But why not just accept SNT directly in order to perform a function or use an app? I can think of only three reasons. 1) Divisibility, 2) Speculation, 3) Trendiness/Hype/“Look at me I support XYZ”.

Because Bitcoin is stupid :wink:. Really though, salts use the same infrastructure but stand alone as their own datatype no? More like Omni, but independent of SNT transactions.

I see your point though. Essentially it becomes an analogy to markets in the real where SNT is a universally accepted currency and salts are a commodity (within the network, metaphorically speaking of course). Narrowing incentives with salts would be an easy way to do PtD on the network, without requiring the network core to manage PtD in any way.

There are major problems/challenges with this imo. One of the reasons for Safe is to make things simple and secure online. Having a Safe and single sign-on with a simple interface to manage your private and personal data/transactions. Once you introduce salts, then every single app is going to have it’s own token coin that a user will need to buy in order to do anything. ApplepieToken, AmazonBootsToken, GugleToken, FrenchFriedChickenToken, etc… then we’re back to square one and the complicatedness goes parabolic. It defeats one of the major benefits of the whole project imo.

Another reason might be to decouple from outside economics - so an in app/game token that can only be created and transferred through operations within the app rather than at will of one owner to another.

3 Likes

Yes, this was essentially the concept I’ve been toying with and mulling over the past few days. I’m conflicted though about what this type of implementation means for the network as a whole. It seems like a pandora’s box. Please convince me I’m wrong.

No idea if you’re right or wrong.

Instead I observe that a characteristic of resilient adaptive (evolutionary) systems is diversity, which requires acceptance of, in fact profits through getting things wrong. In other words it’s a concept with limited use!

Put another way, why not?

This can be abstracted away such that the user doesn’t see this. The transaction would just run through a DEX/AMM on its way to interacting with the project in question.

Isn’t this something an app-builder can do for themselves - if they decide they critically need to have their own token, let them create one on their end and then just distribute it via their app on SN … Why should SN take on the overhead when they can do it themselves?

I have considered those examples before. The issue I keep coming back to is this: why not just use SNT directly?

We’re not talking about or asking for that.

1 Like

@happybeing

Assuming beneficial gain is derived from the error, otherwise it only accumulates damage.