SAFE Network Apps pass network rewards to the people


#1

So, there are some applications which are likely to be used so much, and by so many. The networks’ rewarding mechanism intends to reward app builders based on the popularity of the app.

Certainly, some apps will be so useful and standard that they are used by just about each person on the network.

I will use the example of an exchange. If each user is rewarded equal proportions to all users for their usage.

So suppose the network rewards the app at a rate of 100 safecoins per hour;
If you are the user of the app, and have a safecoin address imported to the app, you will receive safecoins.
so if 100 people used the app - 1 safecoin per person for that moment.

another example could be a chatroom, or a social media site.

The idea is that, the developers might not need 100% of all the coins incoming from that app. Because one thing was done right, does that necessarily mean that other things will be done exactly right like the first app; if so, the first app was done without much safecoin; therefore the next app, how should it adopt a new model suddenly.

Developers should be maintained, so that the app can be maintained; therefore, app builders could also allocate a small percentage of the incoming safecoins from the network to themselves;
An interesting discussion is how much percent?
As more apps reach the network, the proportion of coins will likely reduce per app.
The value of a safecoin increases proportionately to how much hardware it commands on the network.
Therefore, mostly all things stay in balance.

Conclusively, I propose that an app such as: the exchange project will be rewarding it’s users because I can not perceive that any one person will need to absorb and pile up "all the coins"
Such a model would ‘outcompete’ all other models that exist;


APP Developer Rewards (Discussion)
#2

For some reason, this made me think of community management as a plugin. i.e Community managers could be rewarded directly by a Forum app, maybe via consensus of end users and other mods.

Utilizing their wallet address they could be rewarded for their efforts across multiple communities and maybe make a living from it. Could possibly have a performance indicator built in, thereby lifting the standards across the network.

All kinds of reward for participation schemes seem possible for SAFE…that excites me, because currently the economic system hardly incentivises hard work.

Demonstrable use case examples of these kind of effort/reward projects in action will be invaluable to build excitement amongst regular people I think.

But of course, SAFEcoin needs to be convertible to real physical stuff, like food, shelter, power etc and so highlights the importance of a value exchange that can service both inside and outside of the capital machine.

Seems that some kind of computing device that can earn coin and allow participation is going to become a basic human right.


#3

Imagine this scenario:


64 companies total each year in revenue - ~11493 billion us bucks
if those firms were people rewarding applications they would be able to pay every single person 1641.00 dollars per year. Imagine this;

The corp employs people to function, the whole array of departments.
There is plenty more tan just the 64 biggest corps. with multi billion us bucks of revenue; combine the total and these firms could allocate about 9 times this amount.

A huge proportion of these incomes go to hoarding. Corporations do not die; they do not pass things on.
An application, most readily can demonstrate these characteristics of giving to it’s people directly. Laughably the corporations of the planet give to the people… in the form of a product that people can buy, and to look alright they just give away a little something to the needy.

The economics are upside down, where the corp needs only a fraction of it’s income to operate and yet it keeps a significant portion and the service is insignificant in comparison to income.

http://www.inc.com/samuel-wagreich/the-4-billion-company-with-no-bosses.html

I think the strongest direction for sustainability, and “competition” is to perform in such a way that maintains the app core; and its usage should never be a burden to its users. For example, when someone logs into a facebook, they are freely giving themselves away to facebook. Facebook profits, the user is just… there, taken advantage of and the corp simply made a playground maze in order to extract a profit somehow, anything, anyway possible.

This is unacceptable to a society. Societal interactions should quell competitive nature by providing the best state of the art, and that includes its payment and reward mechanisms. This means that even if one is not first one is not alienated.

Instead of breeding singular billionaires; efficient applications for the people.


#4

Yeah, absolutely. We’ve been brought up on a mantra about markets, competition equalling efficiency, and it never was, but now its incredibly inefficient and we see half the population’s wealth in the hands of 2% of the population, and most of that wealth idle.

Wealth is slavery, because money is the power to pay someone to do what you want. And if that person is in poverty or in thrall to the system, they lack the ability not to do your bidding.

The potential is to unlock something like half the wealth of the whole of humanity for the benefit of all. SAFE is part of the battle against slavery, and your ideas can fulfill that. Brilliant.

EDIT… the following is from @dallyshalla’s link above:

“The most astonishing aspect of life at Valve is that there are no
bosses,” said Varoufakis, an economist from the University of Athens
with notable publications on the Euro Crisis. “It contains no explicit
hierarchy. It’s based on what several members of the company have
described to me as the principles of anarcho-syndicalism. Effectively,
free association of employees with one another.”

Anarcho-syndicalism is an economic theory with roots in the early
19th century that articulates a form of government in which
self-organized cliques of labor work together to directly achieve goals.
In essence: socialism minus centralized government plus trade unions.

The way this manifests at Valve is that, after an endogenous process
in which a self-organized committee hires a new employee, he or she is
free to join and freely move around any of the company’s myriad of
projects. Where Google boasts 20 percent free time for its employees,
Valve boasts 100 free time.

Read more: http://www.inc.com/samuel-wagreich/the-4-billion-company-with-no-bosses.html#ixzz3F1TuHdaX


#5

MaidSafe Core also has this model.


#6

I wonder if the Valve scenario is based in part on Cybernetics.

I spotted the underlying principles from being familiar with the ‘The Universal Management System’

An article in the realm: Cybernetics, Anarchism and Self-organisation

Edit: removed video deemed irrelevant by OP


#7

Yes these systems are real, and effective; they were designed by nature.

Though soros and the like are not who I would model after; hedge funds etc, are not good.
not sure what soros video has to do with the thread…
:no_entry_sign:

I hope that we can replace hedge funds with development groups;

These development groups will solve a problem, and that their motivation is not profit but the solution to the problem. A people whose needs are met at the start, and who are not deprived will succeed at such a thing versus keeping a ‘job’.