Updated: RFC 0061 — Safe Network Token Distribution

This thread is for the discussion of the latest updates to Safe Network Token Distribution White Paper (RFC 0061) found over on GitHub (and reproduced in full below) and a following on from the discussion on the first version.

For a bit more on the context and motivations for the changes you might also want to check out today’s dev update.


Safe Network Token Distribution

Summary

This RFC sets out how the Network’s utility tokens will be distributed at the inception of the Network, and how they are made available to contributors over time.

Conventions

  • The key words “MUST”, “MUST NOT”, “REQUIRED”, “SHALL”, “SHALL NOT”, “SHOULD”, “SHOULD NOT”, “RECOMMENDED”, “MAY”, and “OPTIONAL” in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119.

Motivation

The Safe Network has a utility token which allows for the exchange of storage, bandwidth and compute resource between node operators and users wishing to store data on the Network. These are Safe Network Tokens (SNT).

They also act as a means to fund and reward other contributions that provide utility and value to people who use the Network, and wider society, such as open source software development, sites, services, and publicly accessible data.

This paper sets out how these tokens will be distributed, and how they are made available to contributors.

Detailed design

Maximum Supply

There will be a total maximum of 4,294,967,296 (232) whole SNT created over the Network’s lifetime.

Subunits

Each whole SNT can be subdivided 109 times, thus creating a total of 4,294,967,296,000,000,000 available subunits.

Data Payments

Users wishing to store data on the Network, or edit existing data, pay the Network to do so in Safe Network Tokens. A Data Payment is made upfront and there are no ongoing costs to maintain data on the Network after this payment—content is made perpetually available after this one-time fee.

These Data Payment fees are immediately redistributed by the Network as follows:

Resource Supply Rewards

Nodes provide data storage, bandwidth, and compute resources to the Network.

If a Node reliably and verifiably stores the data they are entrusted over an extended period, and serves it a timely manner when requested, they qualify to receive Resource Supply Rewards through virtue of meeting the required Node Age.

Resource Supply Rewards are automatically distributed by the Network to the operators of these nodes when a Data Payment is received by the Section in which they reside.

Network Royalties

Network Royalties are a mechanism through which software development, services, and data which provide value to people that use the Network, benefit wider society, and meet the objectives of the project, can be can be meaningfully rewarded and sustainably funded.

Network Royalties are paid in support of the following areas.

Core Protocol Development

Individuals, teams, and businesses that support, research, design, develop, and maintain the open source software protocol of the Network and enable its ongoing operation, enhancement and security can become eligible for Network Royalties via the Foundation’s Developer Program.

Client Application and Service Development

Operators and developers of software applications, platforms, sites, and services, that run on, and provide utility to, users of the Network can become eligible for Network Royalties via the Foundation’s Developer Program.

Public Data Accessibility

Creators, publishers, and curators of data that is made publicly and freely available for the common good, can become eligible for Network Royalties via the Foundation’s Data Commons Program.

Governance and Administration

In order to provide adequate, sustainable and transparent governance to the Network and provide the required administration of the Developer and Data Commons programs, Network Royalties will also be used to cover the costs associated with the operation and work of the Foundation, and the distribution of Royalties.

Distribution of Royalties

In accordance with the needs of the Network, and its ability to meet its objectives, the Foundation will oversee the distribution of Royalties via the Developer and Data Commons Programs, through the following methods:

Grant Making

Royalties may be paid in the form of grants to fund new areas of research, prospective development of software, services, or other activities.

Rewards

Participants in the Developer and Data Commons Programs may also be rewarded inline with the utility and value of their contributions, endeavours, services, to the users of the Network and the project’s objectives in a given period. This may be in the form of one-off payments or regularised on-going funding such as a Service Level Agreements (SLA).

Ad Hoc Payments

The Foundation may also make ad hoc payments to fulfil its objectives and remit, its governance and regulatory obligations, and in order to cover the costs of administering and distributing Network Royalties.

Grants, Rewards, and ad hoc payments will be made from the Network Royalties Pool, with any unspent or unclaimed funds in a given period returned to the pool for further distribution.

Automated Direct Distribution

It is an aspiration that the Network have the ability to automatically distribute Royalties, reducing both the time for recipients to be paid and the costs associated with administration. Autonomous distribution is subject to ongoing research for protocol development.

It is assumed that automatically distributed Network Royalties would be paid by the Network from Data payments directly at source, without entering the Network Royalty Pool.

Genesis Supply

At the inception of the Network a Genesis Supply of 1,288,490,189 SNT will be issued. This represents 30% of the Maximum Supply.

Distribution of Genesis Supply

The Genesis Supply of SNT will be distributed as follows:

MaidSafeCoin Holders

MaidSafeCoin is a proxy token issued as part of a crowd-sale in April of 2014 that supported the development of the Network. They allow buyers to pre-purchase SNT ahead of launch, enabled via a 1:1 swap after the inception of the Network. This applies to both the original coins issued on the Omni layer (MAID) and the ERC-20 version (eMAID).

Holders of MaidSafeCoin will collectively be allocated 452,552,412 SNT.

This represents 10.536806937% of the Maximum Supply. This is an increase from the allocation of 10% described in the original project white paper, accounting for an additional 23,055,683 MaidSafeCoins issued during the crowdsale.

Tokens will be distributed to MaidSafeCoin holders in the form of an airdrop, with each MaidSafeCoin entitling the bearer to one SNT.

MaidSafe Shareholders

Each company share of Maidsafe.net Limited will entitles the bearer to 105.8221941 SNT, resulting in shareholders being allocated 214,748,365 SNT.

This represents 5% of the Maximum Supply.

Tokens will be paid out to shareholders in three instalments over the period of a year following the launch of the Network.

Any unclaimed shareholder funds will be held by the Foundation for a period of seven years following the inception of the Network, after which these tokens will be transferred to the Network Royalties Pool.

Network Royalties Pool

Out of the Genesis Supply, 621,189,412 SNT will be allocated to a Network Royalty Pool and distributed as Network Royalties.

This represents 14.463193063% of the Maximum Supply.

Emission of Remaining Tokens

The remaining 3,006,477,107 of the Maximum Supply will be emitted by the Network as Resource Supply Rewards over an extended period, at a rate corresponding to Network growth as measured by the volume of data stored by its nodes.

This represents the remaining 70% of the Maximum Supply.

It is assumed that this process, which is subject to further research and development, will not be in place a the inception of the Network, but will be implemented via a future Network update.

Emission will gradually increase the circulating supply of SNT over an extended period until the Maximum Supply is reached. It is anticipated that this will take many years, or even the lifetime of the Network.

Drawbacks

There are drawbacks to a foundation overseeing and handling any size of fund, namely:

  • Security implications of holding tokens
  • Costs associated with administration
  • The centralising effects of doing so

While these deserve to be highlighted and discussed, they can also be mitigated through due consideration to appropriate governance and through the development of automated distribution processes as noted in this paper.

Alternatives

Initial Token Distribution and Maximum Supply

An alternative to account for the additional 23,055,683 MaidSafeCoins issued during the crowdsale considered in an earlier revision of this RFC, was to multiply the total supply of MaidSafeCoin by ten to create a Maximum Supply of SNT of 4,525,524,120. This would allow for:

  • The 1:1 swap of MaidSafeCoin to SNT to remain
  • All allocated pools of the initial token distribution to remain proportionally the same (5% to Shareholders, 10% to MaidSafeCoin Holder, 15% to the Network Royalty Pool)

However, this may have had the potential to adversely affect those individuals who purchased MaidSafeCoin during the crowdsale but before the over-issue of tokens occurred.

We can see from a breakdown how this alternative, increasing the supply, compares to the original white paper, and the current proposal:

Original White paper

Pool % Allocation Genesis Proportion
MaidSafeCoin Holders 10% 429,496,729 33.33%
Shareholders 5% 214,748,365 16.67%
Royalties Pool 15% 644,245,094 50%
Remaining to be Emitted 70% 3,006,477,107 N/A

Current Proposal — Offset from Network Royalty Pool

Pool % Allocation Genesis Proportion
MaidSafeCoin Holders 10.536806937% 452,552,412 35.12%
Shareholders 5% 214,748,365 16.67%
Royalties Pool 14.463193063% 621,189,412 48.21%
Remaining to be Emitted 70% 3,006,477,107 N/A

While we would be not wish to reduce the allocation to the Network Royalty Pool unnecessarily, in this case, as you can see from the following analysis, it has the least material impact overall.

It also has been argued by some that as the over-issued coins were used in the pursuit of the same objectives the Network Royalty Pool—and Foundation—is bound by (namely the development of the Network and it’s ecosystem) it is therefore the most appropriate tranche offset them from.

The Foundation will also retain the latitude to manage and allocate funds to ensure the health of the ecosystem overall, and that present and future contributors are appropriately supported.

Alternative Proposal — Supply Increase

Pool % Allocation Genesis Proportion
MaidSafeCoin Holders 10% 452,552,412 33.33%
Shareholders 5% 226,276,206 16.67%
Royalties Pool 15% 678,828,618 50.00%
Remaining to be Emitted 70% 3,167,866,884 N/A

On the face of it, this seems to be an effective solution, as the percentages and value of each primary pool remains the same as the white paper.

However, those who purchased MaidSafeCoin directly during the crowdsale—and not subsequently on the open market—only had initial access to an allocation of 429,496,729 tokens.

Allocating 452,552,412 tokens to maintain 1:1 parity with SNT, at 10% overall, means that these crowdsale purchasers may realise a relative value of SNT 5.368% lower than those who bought MaidSafeCoins on the open market, all else being equal.

Alternative Proposal — Offset from Remaining Token Emissions

We can also consider a third proposal, where the over-issued coins are offset via the remaining tokens to be emitted by the Network over time.

Pool % Allocation Genesis Proportion
MaidSafeCoin Holders 10.536806937% 452,552,412 34.51%
Shareholders 5% 214,748,365 16.37%
Royalties Pool 15% 644,245,094 49.12%
Remaining to be Emitted 69.463193063% 2,983,421,425 N/A

However as can be seen from the table above, this may negatively impacts Shareholders at genesis.

Remaining Token Distribution Proposal

An alternative considered and debated in an earlier revision of this RFC included a fallback position of the Foundation distributing the remaining token supply, rather than it being emitted.

This would mean it potentially handling up to ~85% of the total supply.

While it was conceivable that this could be done equitably and in line with its aims, it also was rightly deemed to present an undue security risk, administrative burden, and centralising pressure that would take some years to unwind.

Given that we now feel confident that automated Network distribution of these tokens is possible in a straightforward and secure manner, and that this could be initiated via a Network update at such time as it has been adequately tested and proven, it seems appropriate to shelve the original fallback.

Resource Supply Rewards

Note that the term Resource Supply Rewards is an alternative name for what was previously called Farming Rewards. This reflects advice to use more precise terminology to describe the economic mechanism.

Unresolved Questions

With Regard to Subunits

As we are currently finalising the design of the Digital Bearer Certificates (DBC) system, the exact number of sub-units may be increased to provide further divisibility. This is subject to the results performance testing and security analysis.

With Regard to MaidSafe Shareholder Payouts

We are yet to define precisely what event constitutes the “launch” of the Network fro the purpose of triggering the process of Shareholder Payouts.

Subject to Forthcoming Papers

The Foundation is a Swiss non-profit organisation incorporated to support the security, privacy, and sovereignty of personal data and communications, the resilience and global accessibility of public data, the pursuit of a free and open Internet for the public good, and the ability of individuals and businesses to trade goods and services online without the need for middlemen, through the promotion and stewardship of the Safe Network protocol, it’s ecosystem, and related distributed ledger and computing technology

The Foundation’s governance structure, Developer Program, and Data Commons Program will be addressed in forthcoming papers via the RFC process, along with those detailing the specifics of the technical design of Safe Network Token and DBC system.

25 Likes

If you want to see what’s changed since 2022-06-23 this seems to be the main diff:

9 Likes

Just for context.
Current proposed total sub-units,

Four quintillion, five hundred twenty-five quadrillion, five hundred twenty-four trillion, one hundred twenty billion.

vs

2.1 quadrillion sats.

7 Likes

Seems sane to me. Nothing seems very different from the earlier version from just reading.

One query: why do the shareholder drop in tranches? And why over a one year timescale?

Great work and good luck getting the non profit finished. I imagine that has been a lot of not necessarily interesting work! Bleh :crazy_face:

4 Likes

It’s quite typical. Mainly to stop a dump on the market.

Yeah, it’s been quite a long haul! Looking forward to making things again :smiley:

13 Likes

That’s what I would have guessed but thanks for sticking it out for these essentials.

9 Likes

Looking good

6 Likes

Good work on the RFC @JimCollinson

Nothing stands out here that is a problem or issue.

Going into more subdivisions now is a good idea in my opinion as trying to do it in the future will be more difficult, possible but more difficult.

If the Token is worth $1000, then it represents around 4 Trillion dollars. No where enough for world economics. And the smallest amount is 1 micro dollar. Just able to do micro transactions.

But if expecting world sized economics then micro dollar transactions (tips etc) would not be possible. So more subdivisions is recommended in my opinion assuming its not a deal breaker.

9 Likes

For those of us who are more visually inclined here’s a diagram that might help with the overall economic flows. It’s not completist, but


an overall picture of the initial distribution and basic token circulation:

Note that the bottom two bubbles distributed by the foundation will eventually be distributed directly at source by the Network, rather than go into the pool and then back out, but that’s a little later down there road.

9 Likes

Yup, noted. I think we can know more about how the limits of subdivisions soon when the stack for DBCs shakes out a little more.

9 Likes

I don’t know that using the “$” sign in the diagram is the best. Maybe Token or SNT or ?

The “$” to me suggests I could front up to the network with a credit card or similar. When its definitely Token that the network accepts

5 Likes

Aye, you might be right

6 Likes

The real number of unique tokens in the system is 4,525,524,120,000,000,000. The value 4,525,524,120 is obfuscation (jedi mind trick) to make people believe there are fewer than there really are… intended to affect human behavior.

The same is true with bitcoin and other cryptos of course. And one can well argue it is just semantics.

What I’ve come to believe though is that when it comes to a money system, obfuscation is a bad thing in all its forms (eg central banking, fractional reserve, etc) and transparency is a good thing that leads to clear thinking by the greatest number of individuals and clear thinking (good information) ultimately leads to the most efficient and functional economy.

Obfuscation of a money system tends to give more power/privilege to those who understand how things really work vs those who do not. eg: wall street vs man-on-the-street.

A person new to bitcoin who is told there are only “21 million” bitcoin in existence will likely behave differently than a person who is told there are 21 quadrillion bitcoin tokens in existence. likewise pricing BTC by “whole BTC” rather than the fundamental token/unit (satoshi) makes a person think that BTC price (in fiat) is really high. So, is this “clever marketing” or is it lying by obfuscation? I think it is the latter, and that this confustion by the majority of market participants distorts markets.

So what am I saying? I’m saying that Safe Network has a chance to be different. There is a chance to be clear and transparent in the marketing and messaging by making the integer unit (satoshi equivalent) the fundamental, indivisible “SafeCoin” token, and everything else is a power of that unit.

Thus whgt is called “1 SafeCoin” in this RFC would have a different name that clearly reflects it is a sum of many fundamental SafeCoin.

In discussions long ago I proposed using the SI units for this purpose. I still think that is workable and quite clear.

6 Likes

Representations VS base units.

It is totally acceptable to say that a token is 1,000,000,000 base units

The human brain works better this way since we have all been taught decimal numbers and money is decimal too.

Do you buy food by weight in terms of moles or atoms? Would you even want to??

5 Likes

But then, see the notes on subdivisions. We don’t quite know where this will land yet, nor do we know if in future more divisions will be needed. If we plump for a floor now, what do we do in future? Rebase? That could be considered by some to be a form of obfuscation too.

I think most will see this just a question of linguistics, ergonomics (and not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good) rather than lying.

8 Likes

Yup, and if the units are too tricky to work with, people will naturally rebase informally too.

7 Likes

I realize I am probably in the minority on this point. Very few people have ever even thought about it, it seems.

I also happen to think I’m right. hehe. Before ending this discussion, I’d like to see someone address the point that a newcomer may well act differently if informed of the true number of tokens in existence rather than the “marketing number”. And that this is then “bad information” ie a market distortion.

At the end of the day, I will be somewhat happy/contented if the “intro to safecoin” type docs clearly include the two numbers, not just “XX SafeCoin divisible to 9 places”. Because avg person doesn’t understand what that divisibility means/entails.

Anyway, I just wanted to get this idea/discussion into the record.

7 Likes

IOTA coin tried this and it didn’t go well for them.

1 Like

Are the “Company Shares” talked about in this post the things that were marketed via Bank to the Future?

2 Likes

Bank to the Future were shares in a special entity company. That company held shares in Maidsafe itself.

As to distributions then i am uncertain but they would not be a 1:1 (shares in special entity and Maidsafe)

2 Likes