Safenetwork sustainability concerns - Bandwidth has an ongoing cost however Safenetwork is a pay once, benefit forever model


I don’t see why the All Factors Considered line is tending to the baseline. Why would this be the case, given data continues to grow at an exponential rate?


the all factors combined are the costs external to (imposed onto) the SAFE economy. The consensus form the discussion is, that these are falling. The shape of the curve might not be hyperbole in the long run or for a particular factor (like electricity, or cost of CPU) , but right at this moment in history we seem to agree at least, that the slope of the curve is negative.


Hmm (no time now) I think a problem is that the x axis is time…

We basically need to compare storage costs per data chunk in relation to the probability it there is a farming reward for it… And then the control function of safecoin as second line… Then one can see if it is a stabilizing control circuit or a destabilizing… But since there are other factors that play into this it might not be that easy…


So, you are suggesting that if storage becomes free, people may not run vaults?


My goal was first to see whether the graphics qualitatively captures the reality as it is seen by the people who participated on this discussion and if not, what would need to be modified. I believe a number of inferences could be made once we could agree that it is more-less ok.
To answer your question - no. Actually I believe people will run the vaults even if they get no economic reward for it.


Maybe I am just not understanding the conclusion you are trying to draw. IMO, the cost of storage matters little, as long as it is proportional to the cost of PUTs. As long as the network remains viable and data continues to be stored, these should remain proportional.


What the chart above suggests is, that the SAFE scenario is undetermined - the SAFE economy could run a deficit, surplus, or anything in between. @foreverjoyful started this thread when he expressed a concern, that the economy might run deficit, due to the “pay once” feature. I believe he has a point, because businesses similar to SAFE network (when it comes to cost structure) like ISPs, or cloud companies, charge recurring fees for providing services. This is the normal in the industry today. Therefore it should be the duty of the defenders of the “pay once” concept to prove its economic viability. This discussion thread did not deliver such a proof and I believe it could not, because there are just too many factors to consider.

What can be done then, considering the economy might run deficit?

  1. The network could implement some form of usage fees mechanism (the green curve) - just to be sure we make it to “nirvana”, at which point the fees can be canceled,

  2. The network could treat the “pay once” feature as a “loss leader” and cover the potential deficit from other sources,

  3. A radical option would be to not request PUT payments and not pay farmers for farming. This option would be consistent with the belief implied in the statements of some of the disputers, that costs like storage, bandwidth, electricity, etc… (red curve) will in a couple of years be so low, that people will be motivated to keep the network going even without farming income (the red curve will dip below the virtual baseline). After all, the ISPs and cloud services today are not paying us to keep the internet going - we are the payers. We do it because the utility we gain from the network is greater that the costs we have to incur.

  4. Lastly, there is the “default” option - hold fingers crossed, that the “pay once” feature will somehow work. Because that’s really all we can do when we lack a believable proof that the SAFE scenario is going to be stable.


It is only pay once per data item, but there is an endless and growing stream of new data items… we have just added more here!

Dwelling on data ceasing just seems a bit pointless to me. As long as the network is viable, it will be used to store data. If or when it isn’t people will leave it irrespective of the payment model.


Also the pay once is only for immutable data. This will be a large section of the storage yes but less so of the economic input/output. Things like mail, forums, blogs which typically are small amounts of data but each cost to store and cheap to retrieve. Also things like 75-90% of blogs and nearly all (e)mails are read rarely and could include many of the specialised forums too

MDs cost to update/modify/add/delete fields will also be a factor.

So focusing on immutable data is short sighted and misses the mark somewhat for the economics.

The pay once feature obviously means that the charge will be covering the future accesses. Since for the typical file (obviously not all) this access reduces over time and so if we get the algo right there is no reason that it would not work. Just like lifetime memberships work for clubs etc so should lifetime storage work. Just need to charge the correct amount to cover the future (reducing) accesses.

Also to charge rental on persistent data means it is no longer persistent since it can disappear. So to achieve the goal of persistent data we need to have it without a method to delete it on certain conditions (eg no pay rental). Also there is no reason that a “temp” data type (non-persistent immutable data) cannot be introduced to enable removal of data unless someone “refreshes” it by rewriting that chunk. This rewriting of the chunk could be called rental by those fixated on rental/recurring fees, but it would be much wider concept.

So then have

  • persistent immutable data
  • temp immutable data
  • mutable data


hmhmmm - but the tricky part then would be how to determine the cost for such a data type wouldn’t it?

…on the other hand … if you just say 1/10th of standard data type and sufficient ‘time’ meaning network events … that would probably be enough that people might use it for ‘long term not really important data’ and it would vanish again after a while … (magic numbers are evil … anyway … i should sleep …)


Also interesting to think about a possible scenario, where all ingress/egress of national currencies into cryptos being outlawed and the subsequent ‘economic value’ or ‘inherent value’ of the tokens already in existence.

The network would need to stand on it’s own as a p2p value generating entity…which I consider a wonderful thing.

How then would you measure this value? Human advancement, breakthrough research…

Actual privacy…the implications are staggering (especially for the military complex) and worthy of a thesis on it’s own. A closed system of uncontrollable value is another mind boggler.

The OP has been a nice way to unearth facts, possibilities etc and is valuable input for the devs to chew on when that stage comes…personally I’m not at all concerned about ‘sustainability’. When something is awesome people flock to it and support it unconditionally.


Yes maybe.

Some people want data to be forgotten and be willing to pay the same amount.

Guess we simply make the “PUT” balance 10 times what it would be for a safecoin and charge 10 for a immutable “PUT” and between 1 to 10 for the number of network events the temp data is to last for.

OR simply charge more for a immutable data “PUT”


This thread is full of arguments about how the amount of generated data is growing and therefore the inflow of economic value into the ecosystem will be growing with it. But the costs of storing that data is dropping as well, so this part of the hypothetical equation might produce zero, because the PUT costs are derived from a single factor - the cost of storage. There are other costs however, for example bandwidth and electricity and other, that might push the economy into deficit. We will not know the outcome unless somebody produces a believable model of the system.

To @chrisfostertv I would reply that networks like SAFE could be self-sustaining only if it generated all of the inputs the network economy needs (chips, electricity, food for people…) internally. In this context it might be of interest to mention, that I have been watching this forum for years, as I have an economic theory, for which distributed network like SAFE is a natural fit. @neo might protest its name, but there it is used as an acronym. :slight_smile:


Nah, go for it. . . . . . .


All cost factors are included. As long as there is fresh data to store, there will be PUTs from users and payments to farmers.

SAFENetwork will not exist in a vacuum. People need to store their data somewhere and there is no reason to think that SAFENetwork will be proportionally more expensive than other storage solutions.

SAFENetwork also does not rely on falling prices. If prices were static, the market would increase the cost of PUTs, to meet the demands of farmers. If storage costs actually start to increase - for the first time in modern history, with all evidence pointing to the reverse - then new data costs could subsidise old data storage. This would be unsustainable in the long run, as SAFENetwork would be competing with solutions without such baggage. However, I cannot think why this scenario would occur, short of some sort of global disaster, ending modernity. I don’t think we can or should plan for that highly unlikely scenario - if it does happen, I am sure there will be creative changes to limit the impact at the time.