I don't think that's right. Let me tell you how I see it and then someone more technical can tell us if one of us has missed something vital.
Why would you assume the primary use of SAFEcoin would be speculation? Do you make this assumption because this is the case with BTC? Why would 'petty' users of SAFEcoin be dwarfed by investors? I see it ending up the other around.
BTC is like gold. SAFEcoin is more like salt (if salt had a limited supply ). You consume SAFEcoins when you 'use' them and you HAVE to use them if you want to use the network to store or serve any data.
I agree that there will be substantial speculation demand in SAFEcoin, especially in the early days, I would certainly dispute this being the main use for the coins when we're talking about dilution and network growth. I would think all signs pointed towards a ever-decreasing % of speculation compared to utility.
New farmers are highly unlikely to 'sell' their coins imo. The new coin supply will not translate as downward 'sell' pressure within the market. It seems quite likely to me that very very few farmers will bother with crypto exchanges and transferring money in and out of their bank accounts with SEPA transfers etc. Farming is designed to be decentralised, so the assumption is that the majority are just earning enough small amounts of coin to cover their network needs.
As I said above, I don't see it like BTC. SAFEcoins are burned when they are used, they have a huge utility value and you HAVE to use them up if you want to use the network. They are not being bought by the new holders with the intention to sell later on, as with most speculative assets. Rather, they are being farmed for free and used.
So, all these small users come online to USE the network. They farm and provide resources, always providing slightly more than they use (assuming they are not buying coins), and each new user thereby increases the value of the network by making it slightly cheaper and more desirable to use (more valuable).
The reason BTC has never gone viral is, imo, in no small part due to the barriers to entry (having to buy/sell/store crypto). These barriers evaporate with SAFE. The name of the game is not speculative investment, it's general utility. Anyone can get access it to use it. Anyone can get some coin without buying them. I am not assuming that most of these people will 'sell' their coins?!
This is an argument of degree of course. There is speculator demand and this will certainly be the majority at the start - since there is no utility yet. However, we're talking about dilution here. If the network is growing and people find it useful then it seems highly likely to me that this % will constantly decrease as more and more of the general population come on board to 'use' the network, rather than to profit from the coin value increasing.
I could be wrong of course, but this all seems quite logical and clear to me when I play out the network growth in my head. Speculation demand will be there and it will be big. SAFEcoin is a whole new class of investment that makes even BTC look feeble (SAFEcoin is backed by real world resource value). But SAFEnet is also crazy useful. Like the most useful thing I've ever heard of. I would be truly stunned if people found the biggest use for SAFEcoin was investment. It is certainly a powerful driver and use-case, but I can't see all those small-time users caring as much about their $2 turning into $5 as I can see them caring about using the network each day - at whatever value their coins have on that day. Freedom is a pretty powerful thing and crazy useful in the context of a censorship and regulation heavy world.
As it stands at the moment I don't think you can even 'delete' data can you?
The network will be storing lots of useless data, but it will also be quite clever in not duplicating data apart from for redundancy purposes.
I think 'pay once and store forever' is still a little contentious. The economic possibilities depend in part upon how technology evolves. There have been many discussions about how that could play out and what SAFE might have to do, so there are too many unknowns to factor this in to any kind of mental model atm imo.
No, not like storj etc. More like btc mining with random 'lottery' style result and a distribution S curve. You'll get fewer coins as the network grows and there is more competition for them. The coins should be worth more though and the cost of storage should decrease in SC and fiat terms as the network grows.
The incentive for the farmer is an unknown safecoin reward that has an unknown future value. The safecoins are not desirable to most because they give them a fiat reward for sharing that they will cash in (imo anyway). SAFEcoins are valuable because without them we can't store or serve data on the network, we are limited to being observers. I think a lot of people will want to 'act' on the network (ul/dl), not simply observe. That utility ought to soak up all the small, casual farmers, and they should be providing slightly more resources than they are using, thereby increasing the network value, making resources cheaper and more competitive and growing the value of the network.
Coin supply is limited by an S curve for farming rewards, so once we're over 3bn coins or so it will start to slow down quite dramatically.
Ok, I'll let someone smarter than me come in and correct anything I've got wrong. That's how I understand it though and why I am keen to see the coin supply jumping up.