Question about number of coins



there are 452,552,412 MaidSafe coins. When the network launches these can be exchanged 1 for 1 for SafeCoin.

I read somewhere that this number represents 10% of supply, but somewhere else that 452,552,412 is the total number and when you spend a coin it is destroyed and a new one is farmed. When does this 10% figure come from?



When the ICO was done the 10% of 2^32 was chosen as the number of MAIDSAFEcoins to create. There is slightly more than 10% of 2^32 MAIDSAFEcoin because of an issue during the ICO

This is not quite the way it works. A coin is destroyed when you purchase resources off the network. And unrelated to that destruction of spent coins there are coins created as rewards to the farmers at the rate set by the farming rate dynamic value.

The point is that the 2 are separate processes,

  • coins destroyed when they are spent to buy resources.
  • And coins created for farmers.

One day you might have 1000 coins destroyed because of spends to buy resources, but only 250 coins for farming rewards.

And the next it could be 600 destroyed because of spends to buy resources and 900 created for rewards.

The total coins the network could possibly create are 2^32 (around 4.3 billion)


So actually right now there are 10% of 452,552,412 in circulation.

When the network launches there will still be 10% of 452,552,412, and in addition farming will commence so the number of coins will increase depending on how many farmers there are.


There is approx 10% of 2^32 (approx 4.3 billion) which is around 429 Million MAIDSAFEcoin in circulation at the moment. Not 10% of 452 Million == 45 million

Actually I think it is around the 452 Million in circulation as there was around 30 million extra MAIDSAFEcoins created during the ICO

Actually it is 452 Million SAFEcoins that will exist at the start

Yes and also how many are being destroyed as people store their files on the network


I suspect a lot more coins will be used than farmed in the earliest days while coins are still relatively cheap and concentrated in few hands. I should imagine that I will be burning through a lot of safecoins in the first few weeks backing up all my data and possibly creating a range of sites, testing and playing around with it all etc.

My connection isn’t great so if I can farm on it I guess I won’t be farming anything like as much as I’ll be spending at the start. I think most people who are interested in SAFE and farming could be spending more than they farm in those first few weeks.

If people find SAFEnet really useful you might well see supply finding and holding an equilibrium well below the cap in the long term. Very hard to guess though; utility dictates the burn rate, but speculation could push farmers through the S-curve in supply. It’s not impossible that much like bitcoin we see people unwilling to ‘use’ it because they get hodling paralysis when they realise the price will keep going up as long as the demand keeps rising. SAFEcoin is a lot more useful though, it might end up being one of the most useful ‘utilities’ in the digital world?! It’ll be super interesting to watch it all unfold and the patterns, behaviours, and equilibrium’s emerge.


I’m a bit lost on this process, buying resources could be something like storing files on the network for instance, right?
In that case why would there be a burning of coins if farmers have to receive payment anyway?
The payout is not 1:1 for coins spent from users to farmers because of the dynamic value?


Yes, a coin does not go to a farmer the moment you store some data. The whole process is more involved.



Farmers are not paid for storing the data.

If I upload data (lots of it) and it costs me 20 coins. They are destroyed when I spend them. There are no farmers paid because I uploaded the data.

Farmers are paid for supplying data back to the people requesting the data. Farmers are only paid for supplying valid data and not for storing it.

So the paying for data to be stored is does not result in anyone getting paid anything. Its not until the data is requested that a farmer who has looked after the data gets paid anything. In theory (unlikely though) a farmer could store TBytes of data and never be paid anything because his vault doesn’t hold any data people want. And in theory a farmer could get paid 10 times what it cost the uploaders to store that amount of data

Most definitely not 1:1 as @happybeing said. But its not because of the dynamic nature of the price to store data but because they are unrelated. If I upload data that does not trigger anyone getting paid.

  • You pay for data to be stored and thats it, the coins are destroyed the farmers store the data.
  • Someone requests data and that triggers farmers getting paid to retrieve the data.


Thanks @neo

What’s the reason for this separation of payment/reward?


Because they are functionally different.

Also the principle of only paying for GETs and not for storage means there is no way to link them.

You pay one coin and get a PUT balance that you can use over time, so at the point of paying there is no storage done and maybe quite a while before you use it all.

GETs are caused by those accessing data and there is no direct relationship between a PUT being done and a GET (of any data) being done. Also not every GET receives a coin, only 1 payments for farming rate GETs are done. So this has no relation to the payment for storage.


How long will a safe coin buy the resource for? Indefinitely?


The safecoin will buy a PUT balance and the balance is reduced as each PUT is done. The amount that the balance is reduced depends on a function of the dynamic state of spare storage on the network.

So one day each PUT might reduce the balance by 10 but then a month later when spare storage is lower a PUT might reduce the balance by 1000000

A coin buys a big balance and while spare resources on the network is high then each PUT reduces it by a very little, but if spare resources are sparse then you might only get a few hundred PUTs per coin.