This is something in the TODO list, we fetch transfer’s related information when reading content from the network, which is not needed, so we’ll have to work on removing those requests/steps for read-only operations. I presume some of that is what you are seeing there.
Some time ago we had a “balance” object stored on the network, and SafeKey was chosen to refer to that and to the commands related to it. Now we don’t have such a thing and the balance is just a number kept by elders in the section wallet.
SafeKey at this point in time is just an abstract UX, CLI and sn_api concept, all operation need a signature, and in some cases encryption, made by the client using one or more secret keys. So what you need is secret keys for each operation/message sent to the network, CLI group the commands to manage keypairs, their balance and transfer under the
safe keys command…so again, we can start a thread for considering a diff name (wallet suggest by @happybeing and others) and eventually start aligning the UX, API and CLI commands to it. Although, also to consider that a SafeKey/key/… can also be used to encrypting content, so potentially you may wanna use the same secret key for encrypting content to be stored on the network using the same key to pay for it, and/or own it…so we have several things that can be made and the user will eventually be able to choose which key/s to use for: paying for storage, encrypting, signing/owning so other can verify author/authenticity of ownership (WebIds), others…?..
We could say both based on the above.