Thanks for the response BTW! That was a very good one, as now i think even if the safenetwork isn’t popularly adopted by the massed due to possible issues such as this one and others(again, I’m not saying they’re likely, just possible), there would at least always be a bottom line, as some people(I’d probably be one of them) will be willing to do it out of their own will even if there’s no economic benefit. So fair enough. But see i was thinking, and this is actually the point i made this post, is that, can we work out a better structure/deal? Your long term rent proposal is good BTW, we need more ideas like that.
I actually have one too. Maybe i should make another thread suggesting to the development team this, but what if we made it a recurring fee to store data but with a threshold. And it’s not a maximum threshold, but a minimum one that dynamically adjusts. And that threshold is based on the amount of NEW data that’s stored on the network. So if the amount of new data is more than 5%(let’s say) of existing data already on the network, in the past 7 days(let’s say), then the current people who store data on the network do not get charged. If it doesn’t, it gets charged based on how much new data is stored proportionately. This way we can have a safety net to guard against possible failures.
Another way to do it is charge on an individual basis, every user has a ratio of new data they store on the network every month as a % to their existing data on the network. And If that % is higher than 5% every month, lets say, they get FREE permanent data storage! If it’s lower, then it’s paid proportionately, say if they didn’t store anything new in one month then they’d pay more than if they’d stored 4% new data in proportion to their existing stored data. This will constantly incentivise everyone to keep storing new data on the network. And if they stop then they’re charged a little bit proportionately, and keeps the network perfectly sustainable. I feel like this “add-on” feature if implemented, it wouldn’t do any damage to the current model, it’ll only boost it and make it self-sustaining. Because right now the safenetwork with it’s current economical model isn’t, or at least is much less self-sustaining, it has to depend on other things. Of course, you can argue those things are easy to get, but it still has to depend on them big time. It would be nice if it depended on less things and more able to sustain itself through it’s economical model, which is what i wanted.