Proposal: App Rewards by "Pay per PUT" (commission)

Proposal by @DavidMtl:

Taking this part:

The amount of money you will generate with your blog post, mildly popular song, book, essay, comic strip will be abysmal. The amount of data that these represent compare to all warez, porn and movies that will find their way into Safe will be so infinitely small that there is no way this will change anything in a significant way to your current state of living.

I agree, but if you pay App devs only when people PUT data to their App it’s gonna be even more less. There will be so much more GET requests than PUT requests. And I think the reward should be 25%. That way a popular website shouldn’t need to put up any ads.

I agree, we should have it both ways. It wouldn’t surprise me if we see a video App that wants you to pay per view. Like 0,1 $cent to play a video. And that the App would distribute 95% of that to the uploader of the content. That would be great.

[Edit: apologies for messing with your posts @DavidMtl and @polpolrene, I hope I’ve made it easy to both understand David’s proposal on the old thread and here, to give it space for a good discussion! ]


This also means that each PUT request an app makes as more value then a GET request. You don’t need to produce as much. Also, it won’t be affected by caching and would also be paid out on each PUT by taking a % of the cost of the PUT and redirecting it to the dev. Of course, if doable, I can’t prononce myself on that.

But let’s say someone creates a “Spotify” where artists can upload songs. Than a part of the PUT would go to the App-maker (paid by the artist). But what happens after 3 years when the music is still played?? Only the Farmers make money now. The App-dev only made money when the song was uploaded to the system. I prefer a system where App-makers keep make money when their App is used. And even the artists should keep getting rewards. So you load the App (assume it’s 3,4 mb.) and the App-maker get’s it part from Farming that data. The App shows you a videoclip, you play it, the artist should make some money on the data of the videoclip. That’s how I think of it.

1 Like

You are correct, rewarding on PUT doesn’t pay much for aggregators and artist. It incentives app that makes the user upload data frequently like a forum for example or simply an app that backup your photos.

I think these app are much more valuable to the network since they bring data in, which is the only thing the network should care about anyway. We can agree to disagree on this though.

Either way, when reality sets in, artist will find the reward on GET request doesn’t help them as much as they thought and other solutions will be needed to bring food on their table.

Edit: I forgot to add: in your example the one making money is the one who uploaded the data, so it’s either the artist or the aggregator, it isn’t both.

1 Like

I am not sure how this would work. The network charges for Put so are you saying here the network Pays for a Put? Then I would think also folks would upload all sorts of stuff to get paid as the network cannot tell what you are uploading past the fact it is immutable data (hash of content == name) I know I am missing something obvious in your proposal.


No, users pay for PUT as usual. But a fraction of those safecoin aren’t recycled into the network. Instead they are redirected to the maker of the app who submitted the PUT.

1 Like

You can see it as the commission for the app dev who convince the user to pay for PUT request. Like in affiliate marketing.

This is what I don’t get. How does the network know that the data is a PUT for an App? Safenet is created that you, and only you are in control of your data. So if your data becomes part of an App (which means you allow the App to list your cat movie) than the App might show your movie to others. But when they play the video they play your video.

Sorry for going off-topic here. We should move this discussion to an implentation proposal thread.

@DavidMtl, I understand what you’re saying. But this means the Network would technically have to overcharge for the PUT request.

Overcharging PUT costs
(Actual PUT costs) + (App Fee)
I think this is what @dirvine was questioning.


If the Network doesn’t overcharge to include the App payment, then it has to add (bonus %) based on the PUT cost.

Adding Bonus Payout based on PUT cost.
Basically, if someone PUTS 100MB, using my APP…
The Network generates/pays 10MB (10% of the PUT Cost) to App builders wallet address.
Obviously, this is not a Safecoin farming attempt, which needs to be looked at differently.
If it does pay Safecoin, then we need divisibility built-in.

Side Note: maybe it is techinically possible to do a Safecoin farming attempt based on APP PUTS? This would require more development.

EDIT: I’m sure this is understood, but just in case… I agree with PUT rewards regarding APP Builders. But this doesn’t help PtP (Content Uploaders). Their reward should come from downloads, not uploads.

A PUT request would have an extra header that contains the ID of the app dev. This header would be filled by the Safe app launcher whenever an app makes a call for a PUT request.

Of course that is hackable by the user. You could create a modified version of the safe app launcher that instead fills the info with your own ID. That’s a vulnerability. But if the reward is low enough, it will not be worth it to use a modified version of the safe app to gain a very small rebate on your PUT request.

Of course, I’m not a dev, there might be other ways of doing it.

1 Like

I think that’s what I mean. It doesn’t cost more to put data, it’s just that a small fraction of the Safecoin used to pay for the PUT aren’t recycled into the network but only redirected to another wallet.

If it’s 5%, it means the network recycles 5% less safecoin on each PUT request. I’m not sure about the economic effects of this but I doubt it’s very different then giving back money from a GET request.

In other words the network says to the dev: “Thank you for giving me new data, here’s your cut.”

What if you upload your app with a public ID of yours to a public service of the official safe-store (like itunes, google play)
Hundreds of users in xor get the ability to download the tool one time for free and give the service a vote whether to include the app into the store or not. If the attached smartcontract fullfils it’s needs (received enough votes) the app gets automatically included into the store and the included address receives its money per GET coming from now on.

The users with the ability to download are chosen in xor by the service and nobody else can make his own desicion to download the app till it’s added to the store.
By this I mean only people chosen by the service will have the app included in their version of the store and others won’t see the app when accessing the store.

All software not included into the original store won’t receive any safecoin for it.
You can try again with an updated/new version.

Updating your app goes through the voting again with your same pub id…

Maybe crazy idea but just brainstorming…

1 Like

That’s what works best for sure :smiley: . If there was a way to have some safe-store then great, but that area is a concern (start charging, censor etc.). However do not let that put you off, just focus on that part as it also has parallels in the upgrade code location as well (where should you upgrade from and what stops malicious behaviour etc.). So this is an ongoing issue and more heads will help there.

So issue becomes

  1. A mechanism to mathematically prove something that meets simple rules and these rules cannot prevent in any way uploads/use as long as they follow these rules. (heard it before somewhere :wink: )

I hope that makes sense, you are in the area where everything is dependent on every other thing, not in a chaos effect way (yet) but in fundamental types and those types uses way. So deep thinking will get the answer and as usual it will be simple.


Fundamentally, earning coins for data putting or getting is limited. The data size will never correlate well with the market value, as the market values things irrespective of their data footprint.

For storage, rewarding farmers works because data storage is essentially a commodity. When requested, the content must always match what was saved and speed of delivery (amongst nodes storing it) allows for competition. These are objective values, which can easily be measured accurately.

Where content is concerned, it is not a commodity. Far from it. We cannot simply measure what some work is worth as it is philosophically impossible - it is subjective, with the value being derived by the observer.

This is why I admire the aspiration, but reality does not care. This is exactly why market economics is needed, to allow individuals to decide how much they value something, in order to reach a free trade.


I agree with you and I think this is a reason why making a reward on PUT makes more sense for the network. It doesn’t try to evaluate the worth of the content. It’s just part of the cycle of handling data, the thing the network should really cares about.

1 Like

Since @DavidMtl first proposed this a few months back, I have always held this as one of the better ideas about this issue. It’s less gamable and it’s philosophically correct (from my point of view). It’s also an established business model - affiliate marketing.

I was thinking about having a home directory for each persona that a user may have on the network. Each app that is used can create its own subdirectory there and store any data the user creates to that public subdirectory. And tagging sounds like a good idea as well.

It’s actually @bcndanos who came up with it here. I’ve just been a big fan of the idea trying to push for it whenever I get the chance to.


Giving credit where credit’s due. Good man.

Do the bulk of the arguments against this still revolve around the opportunity for a malicious dev to “charm” PUTs out of users?

Yes, which can be said for any shop trying to sell something. I think it’s just not a very sexy topic compared to providing an income to content provider. So it doesn’t get much attention.

1 Like

Are you implying that app devs are not sexy?!? I beg to differ…my mirror loves me.

I do think it’s the right way to think about rewards on the network. How do you see this interacting with N99’s philosophy?