(note: this ended up being a bit of working it out as I wrote, so see if my logic holds)
Of course, safecoin is always and forever associated with the network and will be used in transacting business on the network. What I’m talking about is avoiding linking the VALUE of safecoin to network resources directly. Your example goes along the lines I’m talking about.
The problem is “what is the yardstick of value?” The US dollar might be a reference point at the moment, but it also could go bozo valuewise, so the valuation on the SAFE network can’t be denominated in any external currency.
Working out that mechanism for determining the price, in safecoin, is the challenge. A value of one safecoin is very low at the network launch but hopefully will become way, way too much very soon.
The only reason I can see, at the moment at least, for having any direct price link between safecoin and any specific network quantity is to facilitate a low-end free access with a buy up to NSL or above. The only reason for this is to protect the network from being stillborn in bootup and early life due to malicious attack, and to continue to ensure more resourse is provided than used throughout the network’s existence.
I’m more and more liking @dirvine 's idea of slowly but automatically increasing the initial low storage access, up to the NSL over time, though I’m not sure whether that would solve the abuse problem, or just delay it.
Taking a further look, let’s step back to the base value that the network is built upon and denominate that: proof of resource (POR). That is, essentially, the gold standard of the network. Safecoin value will have to vary in terms of how much resource it will buy. This is complicated by the fact that POR is not just gigabytes of storage, but bandwidth and processor capacity, as well.
I don’t know how sophisticated the POR algorithym is or will become but POR is the very heart and soul of the network’s continued existence. Consumer adoption is also critical, but even that rides on resources.
So, I’m now thinking that a minimal account for anyone and everyone who can prove humanness (say, 5 gb). Beyond that it’s pure POR, either via equipment resources, app usage, etc. Otherwise, the tie between safecoin and POR will handycap the economics of both.
This leads me to the thought that the proposed POR token is going to have to be implimented from the start. The POR token would be the currency of the network itself. It expresses the actual input/output values of maintaining a functioning network. Safecoin, because is has a digital scarcity and functionality inherent in the network but is not tied directly to its functioning, could then ride a separate arc of valuation in relation to both POR token and anything else that one might find it useful to transact for. If you need more resource than the network provides free, you obtain POR token at market price of safecoin, or bitcoin or the dollar or whatever someone wants to sell it to you for, and you thus purchase that resource.
The fact that safecoin is distributed via farming/app usage which also come from contributing to the network will help encourage network infrastructure. But the value of it will float more freely and have the chance to appreciate more because of the lack of a direct tie to the network.
I really don’t know what the difficulties or other aspects of implementation are, but I’m starting to think that POR token can’t be avoided. Safecoin itself has already come into 10% quasi-existence with no network there yet. Its value is already decoupled, actually. It has a tremendous potential for upward valuation and an enormous range of possible uses. POR token may have its own value fluctuation and may become its own currency to a certain degree, but its value will be tied very directly to the resources of the network itself. That’s the currency the network directly requires for acquisition of resources that you are not directly providing.
[edit to add]
The characteristics of the POR token could also be quite different than that of safecoin, and could be designed to foster the indefinite upkeep of the network. I’m not sure exactly how that should be done. Perhaps a perpetual spend/burn cycle, etc. Maybe when a POR token is cashed in, it is burned and new resources must be added to create more. This would allow for the fact that computers have a limited life. Resource is always going to have to be added, just to maintain an equalibrium, much less expansion. The dynamics of this will require some real thought, but the purpose is very different from that of safecoin.
POR could also be bestowed as donations to those needing the resources. For example someone needs a particularly large chunk of resource for a research project but doesn’t have funding to buy on the market. Rather than appealing for safecoin, dollars or other currency, they could appeal for donation of POR directly from others who had surplus. Those providing excess resource would also be earning safecoin (at least for a good while to come), so would likely be much more inclined to part with POR on a liberal basis. If bots or malicious people did get accounts, they would still have to run the gauntlet of communicating with real people in an appeal for more resource, providing another layer of security that the resources aren’t being gathered maliciously. Those who are actually earning the resources are able to voluntarily and selectively bestow them rather than having the network do it at random, possibly without need.
Do my points at all comport with the reality of the technical end?