I’ve been idly skimming through this thread as it developed, and my 2 cents is that what @foreverjoyful thinks is a bug is actually a feature.
From what I gather, especially in the most recent comments, you seem to be concerned that the majority of people will be more motivated to make a profit farming rather than altruistically supporting the network. Fair enough, I think so too.
Thing is, SAFE’s economic model, as far as I can tell, is architected to encourage little guys rather than big guys. In other words, 1000 people supplying 1 TB is better than 2 people supplying 500 TB, even though the total space for both cases is the same.
Of course the person trying to farm with 500TB in their datacenter that they own will struggle to turn a profit. They’re probably not using those servers for anything else, have to pay a lot of electricity/cooling/bandwidth/etc. So they might have to drop out.
I see this as a design success, not a flaw.
Because the person farming on 1 TB (first scenario) is using their personal conputer. They’re using it anyway for music, work, games, and browsing, so they’d be paying those electricity / bandwidth costs anyway. These are the people farming is meant for.
So, imo, this is a success cuz it discourages the formation of a “farming cartel” (similar to the socalled “mining cartel” of btc miners in china) and keeps data more distributed.
Also, if the people in it for-profit drop out for not making a profit, then the farming rewards for everyone remaining would increase.