Okay, I’ve had a chance to catch up a bit (not completely, by any means).
Why not just have any mutation of data cost 1 PUT, whatever it is. That builds in a transaction fee, accounts for the burden on computation and communication, and discourages frivolous sending of tokens around just to create traffic.
A PUT should be very cheap, but would be costly if trying to gang up on the network and overwhelm it.
There IS a cost of doing business of any sort to the SAFE Network. It is work for the network to serve up stored data, but the security and incentive models both require that part to be free. But if one is asserting some change to data, it costs a PUT, except in the case of safecoin (and perhaps it should apply there, too, since the “transaction fee” would be very, very small and the same as asserting any other change of data state).
By doing it that way, there is no discrimination between “financial” or other data-property transfer transactions and any other sort of PUT.
Asking the network to share the state of data as it exists == free for the asking.
Asking the network to change the state of data == 1 PUT. Simple, it seems.
The more I think about it, the more I think that this SHOULD also apply to safecoin, just as any other burden placed on the network to store or mutate data.
EDIT: So I’ve changed my vote from undecided to yes, with the proviso that I mean not “txcost” but universal PUT charge.
Additional thought: Applying this to safecoin would have an additional feature once safecoin gets so valuable that divisibility in required. Subdivisions would cost the same to transact as the whole safecoin. So as “safedime” would cost 10x PUTS to transact the same value. This itself would disincentivize fracturing whole coins to create spam. Not sure of the ins and outs, and a lot would depend on the divisibility mechanism, but food for thought.