As dirvine says, it is an interesting area with fixed goals.
Up until now, fixed goals is what we have all been working with.
In the SAFE Economy Explorations topic, I approach this from a few angles. The challenges met in designing an algorithm with great clarity and avoidance of side effects, has been increasingly steering me towards looking at other systems.
In this system, we assume that the fixed goals are difficult to discern, and more so discerning the outcome behavior of them as well. It’s even unclear if it’s possible, let alone feasible, to get the desired behavior that way.
I’ll take a step back and look at this. See if you agree with the reasoning, or can maybe nuance it:
The fixed goals we were previously looking to reach, were those of percent storage filled and unfarmed currency supply.
I don’t think we can say that we had a goal for the reward or store cost, those were supposed to be derived algorithmically from the fixed goals. So, no upper or lower limits.
There was no goal for network size, rate of growth or any time based parameter, fiat value.
Everywhere we tried to make this fully dynamic, we ran into the dependency of some static number, some assumption about future numbers that was not very likely to be correct, and therefore not resilient.
The conclusions I have arrived at, are that there is no easy way (maybe not even a difficult way) to reach a farming reward and store cost that is perpetually aligned with fiat valuation of the network currency, by measuring the available parameters in the network, such as percent storage filled and unfarmed currency supply. We have worked with the idea that there is a source for this information which is the actual participants in the network itself, and that this source can be tapped, as well as managed and contained.
The part I in the PA systems series does not attempt to show this can be done. I cannot say that it is certain part II will be able to show this either. But we are working on ways to get more clarity in this area.
Edit: Sorry, now that I read the post you replied to, I think you were not talking directly about PA system, but specifically about bidding / voting for the bidding rules, which is of course something different. So, you can just consider the above to be directed to no-one specifically.