Reducing Safecoin inflation over time

Potential near-term competition to the SAFE network is that cloud providers and distributed storage solutions such as fog storage will offer users free data storage. Therefore, in order to promote a sufficient growth of the SAFE network all PUTs and GETs can be made free, while still rewarding farmers with safecoins.

This means that safecoins are no longer recycled, and to ensure a long term sustainable SAFE economic model, the inflation of Safecoin can be reduced over time, such as with a halving of the farming reward, similar to Bitcoin, but depending on how many coins have been farmed independent of time.

With such inflation model the early adopters will get a first mover advantage, which will boost the network effect by making people wanting to start farming as early as possible.

Didn’t you already have a huge topic on this very topic?


Not about reducing safecoin inflation over time. With this new model, the cap of 4 billion safecoins can still be used.

1 Like

Well I remember telling you about the SPAM problem you create and thus makes this model impractical.

That was a major reason for charging SAFEcoin to upload.


So in this model, you do not need to pay to store or download. So when exactly do you ever need safecoins then? You could just get rid of safecoins entirely. Why would people BUY safecoins?

1 Like

The same reason I mentioned in the other thread: “Compare with Bitcoin where the coins have value, not because huge miners are burning up massive amounts of electricity, but because of the service the system provides.”

… and then there is no incentive for farmers, so the network collapses


It’s the same model as today except no cost for PUTs and with halving of mining reward introduced. And the halving of the farming reward is a workable model; just look at Bitcoin.

Ok so it has value because people see it as a store of value? Well, i don’t know how much value it’ll have but it’s value basically is going to limit the networks growth. Lets say its $0.1 per safecoin, and the total per day farmers get paid is lets say 1000 coins. So $100 per day, that’ll be the limiting factor, if more farmers come on board and each get paid less and less, to a point no new farmers will come on board or new farmers will come on board as fast as old ones quit.

So in contrast to the current model, which has 3 factors affecting the network growth, naminly being = 1. value of safecoin, 2. Storage costs(bandwidth and electricity) and 3. the demand for storing new data on the network. So in your proposal, you’re getting rid of 3 and leaving only 1 and 2.

I personally think at the moment the network needs MORE factors affecting its growth not less.

well a blockchain can process transactions regardless of the number of miners on the network, whereas SAFE needs to scale the number of farmers with the size of the network

1 Like

Spam is mainly a concern when there is profit involved. On the SAFE network profit is made by farmers serving GETs.

BS And I don’t see why I have to repeat this a year or two later to you

We had SPAM fill a testnet and there was no profit other than some person could say they fill the network.

Of course SPAM will be a huge problem and trying to ignore it will never ever result in a good model.


When the network is still small, then yes it is vulnerable to spam, but even to spam by attackers paying for PUTs (if the objective is attack rather than spam for profit).

No understanding then. Even if the Spammers never completely fill up all the vaults it would throw your “mining” out of whack

But they will do all they can to fill up the network.

When you pay for PUTs then the Spammers are actually helping the network with recycling coin back to the network and reducing the ability for future attacks. You see it actually works opposite once you have to pay for PUTs.

But you know this since you were told a year or two ago when pushing for no cost PUTs/Gets And I remember that you didn’t listen to more educated people than me either.


In that case including when paying for PUTs and recycling of coins doesn’t help when the data storage is filled up with Chinese government spam data.

The bottleneck in the network is probably bandwidth, not data storage. And spammers with botnets want profit, not waste their bandwidth and CPU power on storing junk that nobody cares about.

And this was answered for you as well. The cost keeps increasing for them and they can never do it. But hell they have massively increase the price of SAFEcoin as they were buying up 2 or more billion of them to try.

It would get to a point where they are paying one SAFEcoin per chunk and then farmers are paid a SAFEcoin for a few GETs. Great time had by all at the expense of the chinese government.

Of course this can never happen due to costs, but hey if you just repeat the silly ideas then don’t expect much support, you didn’t get it before and I doubt you will get it now.

You know you just shot your own idea down in flames with that Chinese example. So your model is now dead by your own admission.

Who would want to read the junk data? The spammers themselves? Not likely. Nor would anyone else even find hardly any of the junk data, meaning no GETs for the miners.

And the cost for spamming the whole network is small in the beginning when there are few farmers.

No need to discuss everything else just to talk. Its been dealt with before. You shot your idea down in flames with that one example about the chinese government

For instance

So you claim no one else uploaded anything? Then no one would be using the network.

Illogical reasoning gets the discussion nowhere.

1 Like

I meant hardly any GETs for the spam data. Heck, people wouldn’t even know how to find all that junk.

In the Beta version of the SAFE network, there can be a limit to how many GBs each user is allowed to store. And a spammer then needs thousands of fake user accounts to flood the network with spam.

And with my model, there is more incentive for farmers to start farming as early as possible resulting in faster growth of the total data storage on the network.