No. But I do think there are gaps (like all of us) in your understanding of how the SAFEcoin works within the network and the potent problems there are if we adopt certain things rather than the way its designed.
Yep, but I get the impression that you feel by cashing out SAFEcoins it will somehow cause problems to the way the SAFE network operates, the way ANTS work together. You have to realise that the SAFE network has no knowledge when someone does this and it does not affect the economy/workings of the network. This is important to realise.
Also the coins NEVER leave the system, anyone who trades the coins is simply transferring the ownership of the coins from themselves to another person/trader’s “wallet”. Coins are only removed when someone spends one for SAFE resources and the system “deletes” the coin.
We are not the ANTS. Very important. The nodes, vaults, client are the ANTS, we provide resources for the ANTS to work with. The ANTS also take our data and store it, they retrieve it, and so on. A part of all this work is that “honey” is produced for both the ANTS to keep working and as a reward for the resources given to the network.
Vaults work on their own they don’t group together. Also read what I said again, the gamer will deliberately make the 1000 or more vaults bandwidth choked and thus will not be rewarded because they are never are quick enough. So your idea means these vaults will be given some of the leftover coins. EASY to game,
SAFE network has no way and the protocol does not want to know which country poor/rich person or any other such details. So anyone can pretend to be that by limiting their vaults to act like your defined “poor” vault. Thus game the system
I won’t discuss the rest of your reasoning, not because it is bad, but rather because of the assumed foundation it relies on. Don’t be discouraged, but I suggest asking more questions on the basics first and get to understand some of the dynamics that were considered when the development team chose the path they chose.