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

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?

I hear you my friend, we are misunderstood :smile:

Can you point me to a post by n99 that describe his view?

Edit: Oh nvm, it’s not a person lol. Ill Go read about it a bit.

I’ll do ya one better. Here’s Tim Coomber describing the Idea to @fergish (starts at 10:00 ish)

1 Like

Just a thought - isn’t this essentially just tipping?

Commission/tipping…Yeah, I guess it could be construed that way.

And then the network says to the farmer: “Thank you for giving me space and bandwith, here’s your cut.”

Does that then mean that whatever group used to get 100% of generated coins, with this approach gets less?
If that’s the case then no wonder they’d object.

That’s in line with my objections to changing the original compact (I’m against any changes unless they’re agreed to by all, which could be done by blockchain voting), meaning if whenever there’s a change that makes any party gets less than based on the “prospectus” from before the crowd-sale, there should be a vote.

But for the sake of argument, why shouldn’t users simply pay? What is the weakness of that approach compared to this proposal?

Please stop repeating this falsehood - you’ve been corrected on this several times now so this is not acceptable.

For anyone who needs this clarifying, farmers are rewarded with Safecoin and paid just enough to ensure they provide the amount of resources needed at the time. The idea that in addition to the network paying farmers, rewarding others affects this is wrong. Farmers get the same reward level.

What might well be affected is the amount charged for the PUT, but the dynamics are complex (and still being discussed) so even this is not a necessarily reliable description. For example, rewarding app developers or producers (people who publish popular content, search “PtP”) will affect more than just the amount of Safecoin being paid out by the network - it also affects the amount of data being PUT and consumed, the number and type of users, the usage patterns of users etc.

1 Like

It was a question, not a statement, and on top of that I quoted part of other member’s comment which claimed that, so it wasn’t even an unsubstantiated question. I didn’t even quote the entire thing in which he clearly claimed that the amount paid out is effectively deducted from what the network would normally recycle.

If it’s 5%, it means the network recycles 5% less safecoin on each PUT

It seems now one can “earn” a warning by simply quoting a comment (that itself didn’t earn a warning) or asking a question.

Even better (I browsed through other posts to understand this better) another moderator asked the exact same question (in this topic) and didn’t get warned (and also didn’t get an answer).

(irvine) 10% for app devs, well the figure can be argued for ever,

(polporene) That’s right. But where’s the money coming from? It’s just that Farmers earn 10% less.

Yes, it’s complex and being discussed, and in order for that to continue happening one is supposed to be able to ask questions.

Yes, I had that in mind and I didn’t want to mention that I “get” that part (the bigger pie) because I wanted to keep my post brief and to the point.I don’t want to say anything about moderation so soon after that recent post in meta, but I’ll just say that the number of corrective actions has been increasing. Are the users becoming unruly, the mods too aggressive, or is it a mix of the both? Time for a poll, perhaps.

3 Likes

That is incorrect as discussed and confirmed by David and the RFC

Farmers get a set amount, the same no matter what other rewards occur.

Apps are around 10% of what the farmers get. Not a 90/10 split, but an amount whose value is calculated based in part on the farmers reward. Same for other rewards like PTP if implemented.

As to it increasing PUT costs then the RFC disagrees. As to the dynamics long term @happybeing was right. It will change the way people PUT and the quantities and may even increase the number of PUTs past any requirement to increase PUT cost to cover the rewards. There will always be a number of PUTs that never get read again and more that are read rarely. Must remember that it a dynamic system that we have not yet fully modelled yet.

1 Like

@janitor the reason I stepped in, for what if it were an isolated incident would not be so important, is because:

  • I would be very surprised if you claimed not to understand the detail that I posted, because of the amount of discussion you and I had on this precise issue
  • during those discussions, you had to be corrected and reminded several times - because you continued to post, as here, that app or PtP rewards would decrease rewards to farmers
  • if you did know that, why would you “go along” with the misconception you quoted rather than pointing out it was wrong? I think that would be the most helpful thing to do, and you are usually very keen to point out people’s errors.
  • you demonstrate a repeated pattern of troll like behaviour (posting incorrect or speculative information as if it is fact), gradually escalating that to the point that we intervene, then backing off and behaving well for a short period before starting again. Other similar behaviour is not seeming to have read the details, or taken time to understand what was meant, before responding. Responding in a dismissive manner, as if the other person was stupid. And so on.

Where you post helpfully I am keen to acknowledge that - I like your such posts as readily as I do anyone’s. I liked a couple yesterday I think, a record! The problem I’m responding to here is that far too often a moderator is stepping in to correct misleading information that you post, or other problematic behaviour.

So that’s why you have received moderator attention more quickly than a similar post by someone else. I hope you can acknowledge the reasons for this, rather than pretend your posts and the longstanding patterns I’ve described are no different to anyone else.

What do you say to that? You have very rarely challenged moderator warnings or interventions. Normally you don’t take any issue with them at all, but as I said, only refrain from the behaviour that caused the intervention for a short period and then start again, gradually increasing until it triggers moderation.

As moderators we read an awful lot of posts and we get to see patterns that users who have not been here so long, or who don’t read widely over a long period don’t see.

My request to you is to look at what you post and how. The areas that I think you could do better, for the benefit of all here and the project itself, are reading and understanding the posts you respond to, providing clear and complete responses to points you want to address, which would be helped if you could avoid mocking what others write, and ensuring what you say is accurate and complete enough to be helpful. We all stray on all these kinds of issue - I certainly do. What bothers me, and the reason I keep asking you to address these same points, is that you err in these ways so much more than anyone else, while you’ve been here longer than most, and had far more opportunity to address this. Very often when people arrive they behave in these kinds of ways while finding their feet. But everyone who has stuck around has settled in quite quickly and become a part of the debate in a constructive manner: striving to be clear and accurate, avoiding being inflammatory, and focussing on issues relevant to the project and its goals. For some reason you have, in my opinion, not managed to do this.

If none of this makes sense to you or you disagree with me on anything, please explain rather than just letting it go. I would far rather you make your case to the community for myself or moderation in general to let you carry on as you are if you think that is what we should do. It is the community’s opinion that matters here, not mine or the mods as a group. Every time there have been complaints from individuals who are unhappy with a moderator intervening on their posts I have been keen to hear from the broader community what they think about the issue and moderation in general. So far we’ve had some useful discussions, but there has not been a vote, and insufficient consensus one way or the other to merit a change to guidelines or how we operate them.

If you do not agree with what I’ve said about your behaviour, or think that my response to it is wrong I would far rather you raise this and if there seems cause, have a vote as you suggest.

farmer reward 80%
All public data 20% no matter if it an app or content.
private data 100% farmer reward

It needs to be as simply as this, over complex system break

80% of What?

Farmer rewards is farmers rewards as set by the algorithm in the RFC. I am interested in what the 80% would be of?

Is this not simple (current proposal)

  • Farmers are rewarded for supplying requested chunks
  • APP are rewarded around 10% of what the farmer gets (Or %age of cost to put PUT if changed to pay per PUT)
  • Public/Private data is PUT at the rate determined by algorithm (RFC makes no distinction on public/private for costs)
2 Likes

just keep it simple and fair for all, so grandma can understand.

as farmer I want to know if Provide 1 gigabyte what is that worth in safe coin.
As content maker I want to know what is my cut.

I am not fussed on app devs being rewarded on other peoples put costs.

I think all public data from the key has a get request should have an equal reward…
Do all this and explain it to me simple I am happy.
I f you people stuff it up, just a choice to use another network in the future fork.

Well its simple. The farmer gets 1 coin and App (or PTP) gets 0.1 coin, averaged out over time. (current proposal if coin was divisible)

The complexity comes in because the coin is not divisible and the farmer reward is 1 coin per algorithm determined #gets and APP/PTP is one coin per 10 times per algorithm determined #gets.

The “algorithm determined #gets” is just an algorithm that determines a farming rate (coin / #gets) and is used for the farming/app/ptp rewards. The difference is that APP/PTP rewards require 10 times the number of gets in order to get a coin.


Imagine describing decimal currency to someone who does not understand base 10 maths. Its so simple that one line is enough. Well not for the person who only knows pounds/shillings/pence and does not know base 10 maths

You will never get a one line description because of indivisibility, and even your example poses questions. The system cannot sustain 1 coin farmer reward per get because there is only 2^32 coins. You would run out of coins at any time PUTs slow down. Just not enough “buffer”. The system only rewards 1 coin for a number of GETs (on average), which is what the algorithm works out dynamically

1 Like

Neo, okay, but you should have quoted polporene (it’s easy, see how I did it) when responding to this contentious issue.

I would have if you had linked your quote rather than used the [ quote ] [ /quote ]

Sorry if you were not also saying this is the case. I made the post so that people did not see your post and think that it is proposed to work that way.

From memory that question from polporene to David was to get his facts correct at a time when these issues were not made clear. The RFC and further discussions have cleared this up for a little while now.

1 Like

Well, the difference is what I wrote was a question, while what polporene said was not a question.
But if you consider my question was “planted” to add FUD to the issue, then there is no difference, so it depends where you’re coming from :slight_smile:

Yea, that was a quote from Feb 6th, which was before the mechanics of how it would be paid was known. So I am not surprised that anyone got the details wrong. The RFCs and David’s later posts cleared it up some months later.

So yes we didn’t know back then and that is why he did not get an answer, because we did not know for sure.

Actually I didn’t consider anything like that, I just wanted to ensure any readers got the current correct information so that the question doesn’t keep getting asked. Accept my apologies for not realising you were asking a question rather then using the mod’s post as support of a position.

1 Like

Here’s my quote:

and please use a @ when you quote me so I can reply. I agree this stuff is complicated and I know you use questions to make your point. No problem with that at all. But the point you made in this topic is related this topic (app reward pay per PUT) and my point was a reply to David about the economics of the network. Let’s look at the post I replied to:

So David is talking about the full economics of the network and says that 10% of the ‘revenue’ is going to App-developers. And as we all know, the other people that make ‘revenue’ are the Farmers. So even when the Farmers get 100% while Farming, overall they’re getting (about) 10% lees because some other folks (App-dev’s) can make 10% of the total network revenue as well. Does that make sense?? That’s where my point was coming from. That’s why I asked, where does the money come from?

This is why some folks here think you’re trolling. I asked a question, here it is:

See the questionmark? And you say I didn’t ask a question. well, I did, and I gave the answer to the question as well.

You’re quoting me from a topic from februari 8 this year while people were still talking about Testnet 3. At the same time you didn’t use a @ when you mentioned me (and took my reply out of context), so I didn’t know you were quoting me. And at the same time it seems you didn’t understand the point I was making in that topic as I explained above. You’re using a post I did months ago to make your point. Even while it’s apples and oranges. I begin to understand while others are talking about trolling…

1 Like