RFC 0061 — Safe Network Token Distribution

It could be rounded up a tiny amount though, to something like 10.000000279%. It seems like this might mainly be an attempt to stick to the original promise word-for-word, which would be irrelevant after the maidsafecoin holders do their exchanges.

This kind of demonstrates the difference between us raised by you here in the Update topic (my reply is there too). You are not trusting MaidSafe to do the right thing here and are being cynical rather than constructive IMO.

Firstly, of course there are risks with a non-profit. We can assume MaidSafe are aware of these and doing their best to mitigate them. It’s fair to ask how, but not necessary or constructive to paint it as naive.

In fact because they are aware of those risks, the OP points out that they’d like to eliminate as many of them as they can as soon as possible by automating these features and removing responsibility from the Foundation. You ignored that. It’s almost as if you didn’t read it, but I’m sure you have and have understand it, so why do you not mention it? FYI, it’s things like this which lead me not to trust someone.

The best criticism comes with suggestions for improvement.

Focusing in your first reply on MaidSafe rather than the Foundation and now suggesting expertise on Swiss non-profits is unconvincing, but not really an issue unless you can suggest a better approach.

[EDIT: BTW I’m not saying above that I don’t trust you, rather I’m pointing out differences between us that can lead to distrust.]


I’ll just take it at face-value.

Yes, we are well aware of this that a non-profit will be impervious to capture, or control, or greed, or distortion just as any other organisation with humans involved. There are no perfect structures, decentralised or not, all we can do it tend towards better, and make best efforts to stay true to the and objectives of the project.

The reason I mention non-profit was point out that it, as an organisation, is not being founded for the purpose of accumulating wealth; and to differentiate it from MaidSafe, which (as it currently stands) is a profit-making business.

It is likely in the initial post-launch period we will be the largest, potentially (but hopefully not) only core developer. It is the aim that this will rapidly change, and ultimately we’ll become irrelevant, and replaced, by even better, brighter organisations. This is nothing different to what we’ve been saying for years.


I don’t think it’s dogmatic. I just say this to point out that this has been the proposal on the table for the whole time, so it shouldn’t come as a shock. And you, or anyone else, are welcome to propose an alternative.

But then at the same time, I think it’s a little unfair to presume we aren’t aware, or haven’t thought about it.


Do we know how many members the foundation is going to have?

Will they all be maidsafe employees?

1 Like

You should read my original reply again. The suggestion was to look at how other networks approach it and go from there. There’s no point for me to make any specific suggestion before that common ground has been achieved because when there’s education or information asymmetry, you just end up talking across one other.

This is so bad it’s embarrassing considering the space and supposed decentralization ethos. You should never put yourself in a situation where people have to trust you. Going there in the first place I found surprising and disappointing.

I have no reason whatsoever to trust that things will go according to plan or promises, especially considering the history of the project and especially considering that there are more decentralized alternatives. I’m quite disappointed by this take.

Another insistence that I’m on the verge of finding disingenuous. Who are the officers of the Foundation? Who are the officers of Maidsafe?

I’ll edit my original response here in case you’re not aware. But a strategy of the uber wealthy is to operate through foundations to accumulate even more wealth than they would normally.

If you want trust, decentralize control of the funds and contribution to the project as part of launch. That’s it. Otherwise, just make a solid corporate structure, get some trade secrets, and be a normal company. The in-between is just very strange.


Maybe it’s worth to have a look at a project like https://cultdao.io/
which is a decentralised foundation for distributing funds to contributers

It is indeed getting laughable. You think saying look at other projects is a constructive suggestions as if MaidSafe haven’t done so. Why do you think that? I mean, they’ve been in the space the whole time, created, fallen over and picked themselves up multiple times. The idea they’ve come up with this approach in isolation is the joke. You sound as if you’ve just landed here and know nothing of the history. If that was the case fair enough, but you’ve been here, like me, for years so it is you who come across as disingenuous, not Jim.

If you think other projects have better solutions, say which and how you think the RFC could be improved based on them.

I used to assume just that (i.e., that they were learning from the precedents established by others in the space), but I don’t think it was a correct assumption. Let me give you just one example:
Why did it take them 8 years to realize that moving to Switzerland was the way to go? Other networks have been doing it for years, 8 years for some.

In any event, this discussion isn’t productive. Have a great rest of your day.

MaidSafe should really answer but you are making assumptions here and I can think of two good reasons immediately. The first they’ve actually stated, that the legal and regulatory risks to MaidSafe and its staff have and continue to get much more risky. You can see this in the legislation currently presented to the UK parliament, but no… apparently it’s because MaidSafe haven’t learned from other projects and therefore your assumption that they’ve not thought about this must be correct :thinking:

You’ve also criticised their approach, choosing a Swiss non-profit and are now saying they should have done this sooner :man_shrugging:t2:

Another reason that they’re doing this now, I speculate is that up until now they didn’t need to finalise the governance, because only now are they close to launch. Let’s hope so anyway :partying_face:

1 Like

@happybeing, are you just purposely misrepresenting everything I say? You’ve done this ceaselessly. But to what end goal?

Taking just your last reply.

Jesus man. Make an effort. I did not criticize choosing the Swiss foundation route. Look at the thread of the announcement. I applauded the decision. Here, I criticized the centralized path that this RFC takes. That’s different from criticizing the Swiss foundation.

Seriously take a chill pill, dude. And make an effort to actually read what people write and respond factually. Twisting comments is dishonest. You are looking at my comments as attacking Maidsafe, and it’s making you emotional and twist everything I say. But not only are my comments intended to help, but regardless, you should still be factual in your replies.

You can believe what you like. Still, I was just giving you an example. I didn’t care particularly as to the timing. But if everyone in my industry is headed towards a particular direction in terms of legal jurisdiction, you can safely bet that I will be evaluating why very carefully very early, not years down the line for multiple reasons. I don’t have time to spell out all of these reasons to you. I can’t comment further without appearing as a know-it-all to you, which will just make you become even more defensive/emotional. There are actually people with certain instincts/experience out there who can comment without being prescriptive. Imagine that.

This was my last response to you.

1 Like

Let’s leave it then. I read your comments as I’ve stated and am not ‘twisting’ anything.

If I’ve missed something or misunderstood, by all means point out where. Have some humility and clarify it rather than making provocative accusations. If you said something I missed it would help to quote it next to the statement of mine which you quote and then dismiss.

I’ve met your approach before. If you have a reasonable argument it’s easy enough to make it without personal accusations and dismissiveness.

1 Like

I appreciate this reply. Let’s all take it down a notch.

I admit that I don’t always have the time to point out all of the nuances of something I wrote or go through point by point responding to a reply. I’d suggest reading some of my earlier comments again with the assumption that I’m coming from a good place. Hopefully that does it. If not, it’s okay my friend.

Didn’t intend to be dismissive. Hopefully a good enough path is agreed to so the network can thrive. Have a good one man.


Maybe the thread is full of misunderstandings. You certainly thought that I misunderstood you but just telling me to go back and re-read isn’t an effective way of clearing them up, evidently.

I get the point about that taking time, but suspect we’ve both spent more time than necessary with a more focused approach. That’s always my intention. I make comments in good faith, though they may contain errors in understanding, logic etc.


I am still digesting the RFC and responses.

But one thing I see missing in the discussions is alternatives being put forth. Maybe its too early for that while the information is being digested, but if anyone feels strongly that there are better alternatives then I encourage people present them since that is one of the purpose of a RFC

Please don’t take my comments as me disagreeing with anything but as a call for people to engage with positive alternatives if they have any, this is your chance.


Overall feels like a step in the right direction albeit with some difficult compromises being reached.

This is 10x the ICO amount, not 232 that was originally specified (not sure exactly where it was first stated but for example rfc0012 has 4294967295) which is an increase of about 5.368% over the original total.

I’m not fussed either way, but it might be good for posterity to get a reason for why 10x was chosen over 232, while the decisionmakers still have the reasons fresh in their mind.

Consdering that upload fees are the primary means of distribution and redistribution once the network is running, it’s a bit surprising to see very little detail of how much fees will be and how it will change over time. I’d also be interested in more details about how The Network acts as a middle-man (or not) for these payments.

I appreciate the scope of this document is limited, but storecost and the distribution mechanism are very interesting to me and I feel warrant more detail than just ‘it will happen [somehow]’. Maybe it’s not decided yet.

I wonder if an automated distribution mechanism would also make the funds more secure compared to keeping them with The Foundation? Speed and cost are fine, but to me that’s probably not the biggest reason for wanting automated distribution. I’d have thought security and governance concerns would be the main reason.

What does airdrop mean? Is it a specific process? Or is it a general term?

Is there a source for how 111.5 was arrived at? How many shares are there? Would be good to link back for posterity to where this originates from.

226276206 / 111.5 would suggest there’s 2029383.013452 shares in Maidsafe.net, so I’m a little dubious of the accounting here. Is there some more detail on these numbers / situation?

To add a bit here, is the launch when the first node is started? Or is it when the network goes from ‘stable testnet’ to ‘mainnet’. Would be interested to hear thoughts on which is the stronger case.

Or a third option, what happens if the unclaimed funds are transferred when they shouldn’t have been (stolen, hacked, scammed, minority-agreed-decision etc)?

Kinda funny to see The Foundation being a middleman for the rewards system, even though I understand and agree with the reasons for it.

Maximizing direct consumer-to-business and client-to-node activity without middlemen is an ambitious goal. I hope it can be achieved.


This is a good RFC from the standpoint of making intentions clear. The foundation is the weakest part about it but at least you recognize that. Given the the DBC work that has been done, I don’t see any reason why an automated system couldn’t be devised where the network doles out the remaining 70% of rewards to farmers and 15% to devs over time. For that reason I’m currently not worried about the mention of the foundation middleman, because I seriously doubt it will be required by launch time.

Even so, here are a few comments on what needs to be eliminated, just in case:

This section needs to be eliminated. The foundation finances should not be tied to the network economics in any way shape or form. It should rely on donations from the community just like any other non-profit.

This should be eliminated.

This too should be eliminated.

This is not a good way to do it.

Repeat: eliminate any financial ties between the foundation and the network.


To my mind, a fair/good launch of a cryptocurrency/token is one that:

  1. Is announced well in advance as widely as possible so that all interested parties have a chance to get setup and participate from the moment of launch.
  2. is fully decentralized and automated.
  3. Is part of the regular working of the decentralized software. ie, block rewards or storage rewards would count, but an ico or airdrop would not.

I’m with @bogard in that I typically would not trust a “cryptocurrency” that distributes via a foundation rather than an automated system wherein the exact mechanism can be viewed and studied by all in an open manner.

I understand there is some history here, there was a prior ICO, etc, which complicate things a bit. For all remaining funds, I would urge project leaders to invest in devising an automated system that is available at launch, even if it means further delay.

ps, the word “governance” is anathema to me. Kind of a shorthand used by many projects for “our code/incentives don’t quite work so we’ll wing it with voting and politics”. I agree with @jlpell that section should be eliminated.



We’ve had 2^32 drilled into our heads for years. I consider the 4,525,524,120 to be a typo.

I’ll reply the same here as I did in the weekly update:

I can’t remember in which topic I’ve seen the discussion regarding total distribution but I believe there was a point where the total supply would be in circulation from the start of the network by having 1 MaidSafeCoin equal 10 SNT. Looking at the proposal now the 1:1 kinda surprises me, especially since the SNT will be so dividable.

Could you explain why the network would function better with say 4,525,524,120,000,000,000 available subunits than with 4,525,524,120.

Additionally, is there a reason we’re opting in for 10^9 instead of say 10^8 that most exchanges use? I think we should try to stay uniform with what’s common in crypto if we’d like to have a bridge from the network to external exchange accessibility.

2^32 was facet of the original design concept of Safecoin. It was a hard limit due to that design.

But as some of you may recall, due to some ‘fun times’ at the ICO thanks to a mastercoin bungle, there was an over issue of MaidSafeCoin which left us with a conundrum on how to deal with the additional supply and maintain a 1:1 redemption as promised.

Thankfully with the new token system design we no longer have any such restrictions on what the Total Supply can be and we can match the ICO amount, and maintain the same splits as per the original paper.

Hence the change to 111.5 SNT per share.

There are 2,029,332 shares. Any left over SNT will be melted down, forged into a medallion and presented to @Bogard at the Network launch ribbon cutting ceremony.