“Test” SAFEcoin, on the test networks, should be given a tiny, arbitrary value of a few cents.
Participants on the test networks would be playing with such test SAFEcoin but not really playing, in the same way that the people who bought pizza for thousands of Bitcoin were kind of playing but at the same time doing real commerce. In the case of Bitcoin, this process also allowed its adoption as a real currency to be gradual and to let the core devs work out the bugs in a realistic but at the same time not very dangerous environment. Although Bitcoin was always a deterministic, blockchain currency without a central issuer, I believe SAFEcoin can benefit from a similar gradualism, starting with a fiat test coin of almost insifgnificant value.
In that way SAFEcoin would not arrive like a thunderclap, and it would not be a surprise. There would be no sharp distinction between SAFEcoin as play money and as a real currency.
In such a setting, the eventual exchange of MaidSafeCoin for SAFEcoin, on the production network, would be more of a mere formality, since the element of surprise had been removed.
Maidsafe might also make some fiat money from the sale of the test SAFEcoin.
It would be usable for buying a commodity (i.e., disk space) on the test network. That’s not as valuable as the production network but, as we have seen already, hundreds (thousands, as the test networks proceed) of people will treat it like the production network.
So its market value would not be nil. Small, but not nil.
The current suggestion (if it is indeed still current ) is that no one knows which will be the last test network that will be reset. Only when all tests etc pass and suitable for live network will that test network be declared live.
The effect of this is that as the tests get closer to being able to be called live will people then treat that test network as potentially being the one to become live. Thus the economics become more realistic as the tests progress. Even if people know that any particular test may not become live they will be testing procedures and economics as if live.
This in my view is far better, because charging to do testing will result in 1/10th to 1/1000th the testers as if its free to test safecoin. Without everyone possible testing safecoin we will have a poorly tested safecoin.
I live the fact that we are limited to 100 puts like a first step to a non free coin.
Even if I know I just have to create a fresh account to start again testing if I lock an account, I also know I will have to transfer IDs, names, etc, reupload the stuff. So I know there will be work to do if I spend the test coins without thinking. I feel this this gives them value already.
The problem is that test “money” does not behave like real money… unless it is money. People act differently than if they have skin in the game, so a non-money test “money” does not simulate real economics, and therefore you don’t get a gradual building of an economy.
What I mean by that as each test looks more like the last, the more people will treat the “test-safecoin” as the real thing. I say this because the last test does become the real coin.
So even more than your “small” value, people are going to treat these last tests as the real thing because each test could actually become the real thing. How much more incentive to act real and be a very good simulation of real economics.
Oh and as I said before - if you charge for testing, then magnitudes less will join in. We need all to be testing not 1/100th or 1/100th of the people testing.
You could be right about the number of testers, but you haven’t really answered my objection.
A big bang introduction of (the production network) Safecoin is dangerous.
My OP was an attempt at brainstorming ways to make it gradual, and thereby to defuse the dangers.
Another thing: Speculation around the subject of whether a particular test network is going to become the production network will become very unhealthy, because insiders will be positioned to take advantage of knowledge (“don’t tell a soul!”) that the current network is the production network, and absolutely everyone will understand that. When real money is at stake people can lose their minds. That is another reason to do everything possible to make the introduction of Safecoin gradual (and predictable).
That is exactly what I said will do. While tests are obviously not near the last people will test the other features and functionality of SAFEcoin will be tested. And as the tests become closer to the real thing people start to treat the test-coin as the real thing. Ever looked at the markets, the fear of missing out causes people to become more focused and will cause them to treat it more like the real thing.
And as the tests become potentially the last most people will be treating the test-coin as the real thing. And in my opinion they will treat it more real then any “small value” you introduce. And the closer you make the test-coin to the actual vaule the less people will do testing.
The effect of people not testing because it costs to test is great. It never works well unless you have magnitudes too many wanting to test than your tests can handle. Many game developers do this because 10,000 want to test, but they can only handle 50-100 people in their tests. But SAFE wants everyone and the more the better,
You mean like people speculate now with MAID?
No-one really knows because any of the tests can uncover a bug, so insider knowledge doesn’t work. Also if this was to be done, people will only participate if MAIDSAFE is open about progress.
We will all know when the tests are close to the live thing.[quote=“bluebird, post:9, topic:9934”]
That is another reason to do everything possible to make the introduction of Safecoin gradual (and predictable).
Once SAFEcoin is introduced it is introduced there is no real gradual way to do it. The gradual MAYBE is things like PTD, PTD, etc. Your gradual is to charge people to test in an attempt to simulate real economics, but end up with few testers. Then SAFEcoin introduced. That to me is still not gradual
I think the current plan, which @neo has explained, meets your goals adequately @bluebird.
To begin test coin can be given away, but as things mature the test networks will need to become more and more like the real network and so to obtain test Safecoin we’ll will have to mine it (or trade it ) just like the real network and as things progress the incentive to own test coin will rise along with increasing anticipation that the current network may be the one.
And we will hear certain people complain like hell every time their stash is wiped out and they have to start again.
For that reason, no doubt MaidSafe will be very clear in every announcement that this particular iteration may be wiped, or may be the final network, and be clear about who decides that and using what criteria. Then everyone who takes part does so at their own risk.
But such information about the future gets factored into price. If the smart players know this network isn’t “the one” then the price will stay very low and it won’t be a real market. The complete transparency of which you speak is either unattainable or, if it is attainable, then there will can be no gradualism.
There are two alternatives:
Perfect transparency. No speculation. Everyone knows the current network is a mere test and the next one is real. No insider trading, no recriminations. Result: the test network is not a real economy, and the introduction of Safecoin with the next (i.e., real) network will come like a lightning bolt, a mad scramble.
Imperfect transparency. Much speculation. many participants are guessing whether this is the real deal. Much disinformation is spread by anonymous visitors. Much rancor. Result: the test network and the real network are more alike economically but a few clever people will clean up and many will be angry.
I think this is key, so a test should be declared “the one” when the test proves a success. So when we have things disabled, security switched off we can say, this definitely is not going to release. Then release candidates start and we should have all features and security enabled, but try and hack it. When we all think it is secured and stable the test keeps running and that is it.
The whole community should know at the same time. Otherwise we always restart and drop, then finally start the real network, the only issue is that it starts small, so we do it secretly and grow it to a secure level of membership (we would farm then to by default) and then at a certain size declare it OK. That’s unfair IMHO.
I think the route we are on is possibly the most correct one and certainly the most open.
We will have 2, but not with the extreme level of consequences you include for it.
I think the only people in a position to exploit this to the extreme extent you suggest are those who have prior knowledge of the decision within MaidSafe. Hence my expectation that they will clarify this as best they can.
They have always been in that position though, so this is just one (particularly large) opportunity which they could try to exploit. But this has always been a risk that anyone investing or speculating had to expose themselves to.
It possibly is, there is a valid option though to allow the release candidates to farm and eventually these become real in a release candidate deemed secure and stable. That may be a very fair way to reward testers etc.
@DavidMtl How would that happen? The coins are mutable data on a network, and the network is defined by the vaults, as set in their config files (or however it is done in future versions). A third party cannot delete the data (coins) that they don’t own (and isn’t in their own vaults). Now that is getting close to the immutability that some people pine for…
Speculation around the subject of whether a particular test network is going to become the production network will become very unhealthy
Tell that to JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs, manipulating interest rates, massive corporate takeover deals, precious metals markets. One thing at a time here, MaidSafe isn’t being created to fix corruption and unethical trading. They are building and trying to perfect a revolutionary program, but I’d argue stress testing comes before mitigating the very few crooks that will manipulate the market.