I definitely welcome this. And I have been the one to say, “oh gosh, the economics bit is way way more complicated than people make of it”.
But. We’ll get to that. If you can get some economics professor on board to discuss these things we are a number of people who would be very interested in those discussions.
One thing that I think might have gotten lost in all of this is that this is not a final solution. We’re trying to make it good, as good as is reasonable to expect by the time spent, but we’re not trying to make the final solution here. Good to have in mind.
As long as we don’t do DBC (digital bearer certificates) then an approximation is available. Could perhaps be with DBC as well, but that is beyond what we know now.
I admire that insight, I know you and all of the team are people that supports knowlegde, logic and reason.
It may be possible that I could ask one teacher we had in macro/micro and monetary economics, he have reviewed economics books on these topics before they are released and I know him as very competent and objective. He is not a professor but he has very much knowledge of macro/micro and monetary economics. It was a few years since I finished my bachelor so I have no direct contact with him anymore but I could try. If there are some compensation for the work that may also help.
As long as we can find an objective professor that tell things purely based on collected academic knowledge and science then maybe David also could find someone as he have contacts within universities in Scotland. As long as the choosen one don’t have any politics and agenda bias then all is good.
On the topic of DBC, I’m thinking of having those coin mock ups pressed and I have DBC on them. Is it something that can be added later regardless of implementation? Perhaps I should remove that. The point was that there has seemed to be a decent amount of interest from the team that it could be implemented someday and would be another thing that sets SAFE apart that could be included in my ‘unofficial’ coin design.
It’s both the data uploaders, and the network. Increasingly more the data uploaders, until the network pays nothing. That is the mechanism to get the unminted money out into circulation.
The exact rate at which data uploaders take the real cost of storage, and network ceases to mint new coins (to the benefit of farmers), is an implementation detail.
I have implemented a solution (presumably) that gives a decline up until ~130 billion nodes, while seeing fairly OK costs also at the very first moments of the network. That is equivalent to a world wide adoption with some IoT. (There are caveats, but the details of these might very well be outdated and made irrelevant in any of the upcoming testnets.)
It is possible to imagine farming systems where this is not decided by the network (i.e. a handful of developers at design time…) - such as PAC - but that is beyond the scope of this task at this point of time.
I can’t guarantee this.
But as @Sotros25 says, there are many views also in academics, and these need to be contrasted. If there are people who feel compelled to turn stones here, they are more than welcome, and they will meet many eager minds in this community. If they need compensation, it might be possible at some point, but I wouldn’t count on it as a priority within the foreseeable future.
If you have an island with 100 people on it and 200 gold coins, you have 2 coin each. If another 100 people arrive at the island, there is only enough coins for 1 coin each. In other words, each coin is worth twice as much. This is hugely deflationary.
Replace gold coin with SAFECoin and people on an island with people using SAFECoin. I hope my point is made.
Please comment in future posts if you are discussing some special case relative deflation so there is no misunderstanding, that you don’t talk about general deflation. General inflation/deflation often means that the value of money have increased/decreased due to monetery total amount have gone up/down.
The value of the coin has not changed but the Islands GDP per capita has changed, the people are only 50% as wealthy as when there where fewer people. But the buying power of each coin has not changed as it depends on total produced goods and services added value and what that value is to other Islands produced goods and services added value.
That people are very much a part of equations does not exclude special case relative deflation. As you don’t speak about deflation as known in general terms from what it normaly means, then it could be seen as a special case and as you use it in a relative meaning as you are talking about the amount of people changing.
I think he was simply stating that if the network & demand for Safecoin is growing at a faster rate than the rate of money supply growth, there will be deflationary pressure (price for network resources will go down in terms of Safecoin). If the Safecoin supply increases at a certain rate, that deflationary pressure will be decreased to some degree, which I don’t think is a special case of deflation.
I’m also interested to hear why it’s important for the supply to be increased.
It seems to me that the only clear reason to do this is to ensure that investors are diluted; farmers who contribute to the network are rewarded in the long term more than those who just put money into the system. That makes some good sense, but I’d like to know if it is the motivation. If this isn’t the motivation, I think it’s cleaner to just let a market emerge without any supply change, as the network’s resource market needs to work once supply is no longer increasing anyway (and the upside of token holders not getting diluted if it’s not needed).
I don’t think this is a good way to visualize it in the abstract. Better to say that the uploaders always and forever will pay the network to safeguard their chunks, and the network will always and forever pay the farmers for the raw resources it needs in part to do so. This indirect coupling between uploaders and farmers is one of the best aspects of the network economic model.
We need to leave enough meat on the bone for the next people. But no matter how we do it, there will be dissatisfied with the 15% premining.
So people imagine that there will be only 1 SAFE network. My current understanding is that there will be many. In some of them the premining will be 0%, in others 100%, so I expect the first fork to appear in 6 months…
I wonder whether this may lead to some kind of cascading effect, where the best time to leave is just after your accumulated rewards are paid out. So maybe when that payment event is triggered it provokes a few (or a lot) of nodes to leave? Just poking at the potentially sensitive aspects of this mechanism, I’m not really sure how significant this will be in real life. Maybe having payouts staggered between nodes is less sensitive to mass exodus?
What happens to accumulated reward that are not paid out because a node departs unexpectedly? Do the unclaimed rewards return to the section pool of rewards?
One thing that isn’t clear to me is why the motive to ‘stay around’ leads to ‘permanent data’. It would be possible to drop unpopular data and if it’s not requested during the time the node holds it then there is no consequence for the node.
Overall I like the idea in the quoted chain of logic, it seems quite elegant.
Yes, good to have this reminder, the design is not permanent it’s a way to get started on testing.
Hopefully we can see the results of these simulations sometime, sounds fascinating.
That won’t be neccessary as farmers are paid by clients who store data, no need for mining new coins, we are not blockchain which can’t survive on transaction fees, our network should make farmers survive on the amount paid by clients who wants to store data.
But clients pay the network so it will still be the same effect, the stored data is paid by clients no matter if clients or the network pays farmers in a direct way, no need for mining new coins and increasing supply, above what clients pay. There is no actual need for the 15% boost.