Proposal to scrap expanding to 4.3bn Safecoins and just 10x everyone's holdings instead (i.e. moving the decimal point)

[DavidMc0]

@jlpell

The vaults/nodes have a lot of work to do behind the scenes, routing messages, ensuring communications, encryption, maintaining data integrity and sufficient redundancy, archiving cold data, bringing new storage resources online, protecting against spam, and other attacks by adversaries. All of this takes time. Time is money… err safecoin.

Indeed. This is what farming rewards are for, which can function very well without being out of balance with the income the network is generating.

The network’s demand for farmers’ resources is equal to users demand for network resources.

@jlpell

I think you need to think of it in terms of cash flow.

In terms of cash flow, I don’t understand why cash in to the network would need to be different to cash out from the network for any significant period of time, given the the role the network is playing is to balance supply & demand of resources.

@jlpell

How would your own finances work if you had to spend everything you earned immediately and had no monthly or yearly buffer and no access to loans or a credit card

I’m not an autonomous network with a specific role of balancing supply and demand for my resources.

To flip this question around, for what reason would the network need for a buffer / credit card / trust fund?

The SAFE network certainly needs a buffer, but I think this can be the spare space on the network - not a stash of SAFE coin.

Any spike in demand for network resources (drop in spare resources) should trigger a proportionate;

1. increase in cost per PUT to ration available space on the network
2. increase in farming rewards to encourage new resource provision

…and vice versa.

If instead, the network increases payments to farmers & pays from its trust fund & leaves the cost per PUT unchanged, then it is subsidising the network, which is now out of balance and in negative cash flow.

To some degree this will lead to;

1. Farmers making investments that they wouldn’t based on an unsubsidised price, which would have increased to a smaller degree
2. Users uploading more data than they would based on an unsubsidised market price that had been allowed to increase

A return to equilibrium would result in farmers getting paid less, as demand from users at the equilibrium price would be lower than it would have been at the subsidised price.

Why is it desirable to have the network being used in a way that doesn’t reflect the true supply and demand of those contributing and using resources?

I know that I’m not seeing this in the same way as others here & we’re crossing wires a bit, but I am being honest and enjoying exploring the concept, so please be patient, and hopefully we’ll all learn something