Poll: Should MaidSafe implement PtP (Pay the Producer)?

And there is an idea to negate this too. Make PtP work on a file level. Exactly how would have to be developed.

Also what you say is against APP rewards too.

Anyhow that what the poll is for to find out what everyone thinks.

I am against those too if it’s based on GETs and bandwidth. I don’t know how the network will even differentiate between apps and data. If the answer is some kind of blessed app store or Launcher, then yuck.

3 Likes

No, the safebay should not be paid by the network for other artist’s work.

1 Like

And who are you or anyone else to decide the subjective value of what things are worth? That’s to be left up to the individual or no one which is why is should remain all equal.

1 Like

Who is the network to say what things are worth?

And How?

Because if the network fails to preserve it’s value and starts giving handouts based on some random criteria -it is hurting itself. I would argue that most measures that the network could use don’t reflect value. Megabytes, downloads, etc. If you use the wrong measurement device you are going to pay for something that most likely doesn’t matter – and likely incurs costs…

3 Likes

How about pairing the ptp program with a reputation system to determine if content is in fact of value and if so by how much.

1 Like

My thought is that ptp should be a separate reputation based process… I wouldn’t mind if the 10 percent was paid – it just needs to be paid intelligently, by some measure that matters… I like the idea of different communities having their own currency and the excess farming revenue buying at market and burn thus raising the values of the communities currencies. Artcoin, Medcoin, piratecoin, porncoin, musiccoin, makercoin etc. The farmers could decide what currencies they choose to subsidize…

It is better that the network preserve its value than to pay foolishly.

1 Like

Typical “net neutrality” proponent. In principle he’s for equality, but only after “appropriate” discrimination by him has been fully implemented. More importantly, that primitive hick Joe Sixpack can’t be expected to make the “right” decision here so someone must make it for him.

Every GET ought to be treated the same because that’s (the delivery of chunks) useful work what consumes resources.

Hehe, true that. Related to this there are people here who argued that SAFE giveaways to “poor” people who can afford to own mobile phones and pay telco subscription are still desirable because “video downloads can get expensive”. :smile:
Sponsoring access to 300KB ePub books would be too cruel. Everyone deserves multimedia education!

  • PtP should not be implemented because it will lead to rewards gaming.
  • Apps could create their own fee collection metrics in addition to traffic.
  • Every GB should be treated the same because it is not possible to determine what the freaking files contain.
  • Public and private PUT’s should cost the same for the same reason.
8 Likes

I am alll for net neutrality – but when you subsidize per megabyte that isn’t really neutral — Not only that – it isn’t even smart in its non-neutrality.

2 Likes

He’s got a point there. Which is why I was against having any percentage of farming revenue go to anyone in particular in the first place. While devs are important giving them a percentage of farming is just raising them above everyone else as a special interest case, and moreover writing it into code is just another form of coercisve tax. Now with a PtP system at least you reward anyone who produces something however it’s still subsidizing producers over anyone else, thus subsidizing a special interest group. So the point still stands.

Moreover if we’re going to have altcoins for different things like porn, medicine, makers, art, etc then we should also have an altcoin for devs as well. So instead of having a percentage of farming go to farming people could just buy a share of devcoin or something which they could spend to buy things like new software or whatever.

3 Likes

Without content the farmers don’t do too well either though… I am not terribly in favor of paying the farmers more than needed either – And I don’t think it is that much… The excess ought to be redirected to causes that grows the network and it’s content…

We must realize that we are asking people who can publish elsewhere to come into our “walled garden” and put their work before a much smaller audience – at least for a time. In most cases they just won’t bother… Youtube is already there. It already pays (poorly). Unless there is a significant stream of content, SAFE will not be adopted by a significant economy.

All for it. The network currency ought to be used to preserve the network. The network is a big enough experiment by itself without adding layers and layers of economic complexity to go wrong.

2 Likes

Just a thought here about devcoin but you could set it up so that devcoin could be used to buy shares in maidsafe. The more shares you get the more votes you get in decision making and such.

And so how would this work? Someone posts public content, watermarks it as theirs, and says “this is insert type here and I want to be paid in insert altcoin here.”

In summary, you (and I think most everyone) don’t know how much anything should cost, and that’s normal.

What is not good is that this is not enough of a warning to most folks that pricing should be left to the market. Instead we’re are discussing how to do the impossible.

Here we are four (or more) months before the release and now there are even ideas to introduce a new coin…

I was criticized for proposing to not charge anything for uploads until coin economics has been worked out. That increasingly looks like the one of less bad ideas in recent weeks.

1 Like

It would make sense on a project that’s overdue to limit scope. Instead MaidSafe seems to be tackling everything except world peace. And someone will probably start a thread about addressing that one day. The more the scope of SAFE expands, the more likely: (1) the software will have awful bugs, (2) it will not perform its core functionality optimally, (3) development will be too costly and time consuming, (4) the network will have such a particular and idiosyncratic featureset that it will be useless except to the ~50 people who post here asking for features, (5) the project will be forked to remove most of the code and SAFEnet Lite is launched.

8 Likes

Please everyone, keep the comments here brief so others can follow your thoughts and have their thoughts on the Poll in question.

If you wish to discuss, rather than comment the merits of one way over another then do it in the threads that are listed, or if in another thread then tell me and I will list it in the OP. People were expected to avail themselves of the threads if they wished to research the matter, and your voices would be heard in those threads if you wish to continue extended discussions

If this thread turns into a drawn out discussion between a few then it limits the abilities of others to have their thoughts heard in a concise manner and their thoughts will be lost in a large discussion.

Thank you for understanding.

1 Like

I worry about this concept. If it can be gamed, it could fatally wound the network.

Moreover, the value question concerns me. Really, the producers need to set their price and consumers should decide whether it is worth accessing it. This is how value is derived in a free market, which should always be our guide.

The above being considered, I don’t think I can support the proposal in its current form and I would rather a strong core network was concentrated on.

10 Likes

First off @zankfrappa I appreciate your comments, as you have had some incredibly insightful ones in the past, and I would very much like to have your input in the current and future debates. That being said, I am unable to view your posts as they are rescinded at this time.

Back to the OP - No. I do not believe that PtP should be implemented at the network level. This may very well be better suited to be dealt with at an APP level, but the network should not be the one to determine which (if any) content should be rewarded.

P.S. My thanks to the moderators (@system, @happybeing, @Melvin, @frabrunelle, @polpolrene, @jm5, @fergish, @Seneca, @neo) for keeping this strictly a polling thread. I am more than happy to either create a new thread with my comments/concerns or contribute to an existing one knowing that this thread is strictly for polling purposes only.

2 Likes

And “brief” comments on why one chose what they did if they wish, as this provides insight to the community views.

1 Like

This makes me feel a bit wary.

It all sounds great to have software developers and producers get paid for their content, but I`m affraid having these economic systems built into the core could cause serious side effects and have unforseen consequences.

How can the network give the right value to the content? If by quantity, it can be gambled or incentivize “spam” and “click baits”.

On the other hand it would be nice if e.g. music creators could get paid directly when people download their songs.

I´m on the fence with this one, but I´m leaning towards just having a basic core network without too much economics built in…

6 Likes

The producers will be paid out of the network. So watching a videoclip is free, but both Farmer and producer make some money on it. I think that’s a good thing. It makes the network pay out to creativity. And it’s optional, if you share a videoclip without your wallet-address you make no money on it.

1 Like