fwiw I agree with you; this is a section from my unpublished ‘wish list for safenet 2.0’
- Storage based on very-long-term rent (eg 100 years) rather than permanent storage of chunks
- option for clients to turn on ‘crowdfunding mode’ so when data is visited the rent can be topped up a little bit by the visitor if they choose to do so (like flattr)
- controversial for sure, but in my opinion economically necessary
But I feel the concerns also miss the forest for the trees.
Why does wikipedia work? Why do torrents work? Why do public libraries (ie common goods) work? Nobody is paid to contribute, and contribution actually costs the contributor. Yet people still contribute (economic irrationality?!). I guess I’d have to say their behaviour is altruistic. I don’t think pure altruism is sustainable or desirable (which I think we can both agree).
It’s better to conceptualise economic sustainability on a spectrum between ‘purely altruistic’ and ‘purely rational’ behaviour. The key difference is how users measure value. In purely economic behaviour, for every give there’s a take. Zero sum. Purely altruistic behaviour is based on all give with any take being outside the economic system of measurement. Altruism is a bit like creating a positive externality.
In a system like the safe network there’s some value besides just the economic value / safecoin value / ‘purely abstracted monetary’ value. The data stored on the network is worth keeping for its own sake. Like wikipedia. So the incentive structure should balance between
- those who will take part no matter what (ie altruistically)
- those ‘normal’ users who take part in the rational economic sense
- those who behave in an economically maximal / selfish / malicious manner.
To me, pay once store forever is sustainable if the network data is valued beyond just an abstract token for transfer and storage of wealth. Which I think it clearly will be.
If the safe network was just a currency maybe I’d agree more strongly with the concerns. But it’s much more than that, and having a network to distribute ideas rather than just tokens of value is worth enough to justify some alturistic contribution. It comes down to ‘what do I / you / we value’. It eventually must lead to something beyond just ‘the abstraction of value’ (ie money).
The emotional conclusion I always come back to is there should be no reason for something like the destruction of the Library Of Alexandria to happen in the modern world. Pay once store forever is the answer to that problem.
I realise this doesn’t answer the concern, but hopefully it makes it a little less binary.