Updated: RFC 0061 — Safe Network Token Distribution

me too :slight_smile:


That may be the big problem that the foundation may encounter.

Among the four actors concerned:

The first two, and in particular the holders, are the ones who have a real possibility to take legal action against the company or the foundation for their possible losses.

As this RFC only generates real losses on the holders, it significantly increases the likelihood of this occurring.

In fact, if I had the resources and did not want this project to go ahead, it would be the simplest way. Own some safecoin and sue the company and the foundation for fraud.

Is it worth taking this risk when we could simply take back the overspent safecoin from the farmers’ total?


This is not true, the sale of the over-mint never breached the original contract. Therefore no legal problems could have occurred, meaning nothing could have been overcome.

Is English not your first language? That is the only reason I can think of why you did not read what you quoted. Otherwise you deliberately created a strawman to make an argument against. You quoted me saying what historical event occurred.

Yes I can read, the contract ends with delivery of 10% of all safe-coin, for the amount sold at the ICO, on the launch of the network. Suggesting that the sale of the over-mint is a or could have been legal problem is untrue. There was no problem with selling additional tokens. The same as taking the loan of 10 million MaidSafeCoins and selling those on the market. No legal problems there either.

Those who don’t care are obviously happy either way, so there’s a majority happy for the RFC to be implemented as is :man_shrugging:t2:

David has confirmed (above) that further debate and change is causing delay and the longer we do this the more disruptive it will be.

The last update states that it has already been submitted:

Every single post, especially ones that are ill informed makes this worse.


I don’t share the view that Maidsafe are allow to “do whatever”, in order to not delay the network and launch. If doing the compliant and legal option takes additional time. Then they should spend that additional time. I’m Okay with a delay, I’ve waited almost a decade, a bit longer won’t hurt.

If someone shares a different view, are they ill informed?

1 Like

As I said before I am of the opinion that with both solutions suggested (RFC0061 and RFC0061A) there will likely be no significant difference in real outcomes, only in perceived terms/%ages. My reasoning is along these lines :-

The market already accepts there being 10% of 2^32 + approx 23 million MAID existing and in the hands of holders. That is ~10.5% of RFC0061A or 10% of RFC0061

The SNT in the holders hands at launch will remain the same as there is that much MAID and its 1:1 exchange for all MAID

The increase in SNT will be the same for both assuming the same algorithm for distribution is used. Needed for fair comparison since distribution algorithms can change this by large amounts depending on the algorithm. And as I suggested before the algorithm for distribution of the remaining SNT is the real area that needs to be addressed if you are looking for potential significant material losses and 0.5% of speculative amounts is not going to attract real attention. Its spitting in the wind so to speak since markets can change by 20% or 50% or 100% because the “wind” changes.

Since the markets see the current MAID as what it is and the increase in SNT is the same then the markets will behave the same when the quantity increases by the same amounts. IE no material losses at all no matter which RFC is used.

The real loser though is the current & future core/app developers (and content creators perhaps) because the foundation will have less real funds (getting only ~14.5% of SNT initially in real terms for the RFC0061A) to distribute to pay them

I did point out that changing back to the dogmatic version and manipulating the foundations %age can cause the markets to react badly to the news of reverting back to old system that doesn’t account for the evolution of the project and regulations the world now has 8 years after the dogmatic version.

This reaction will have a negative effect on holders and in speculative terms be real damage to holders.

But of of course real loss is also speculation and the effect may be zero after a short period because the market may care less about reverting back to the original.

This little thought experiment I think should be considered carefully as the real effect between the two will only be felt in 10 to 20 years (depending on distribution algorithm) and of course by then there is no way to determine if there was any difference between the two because of the highly speculative nature of the market which can change by 20% or 50% or 100% in days or weeks let alone 10 years.

Then by arguing something I did not say means gaslighting and trolling. The quote you used was me speaking of factual history event.

Strawman argument. You and I know they cannot, the foundation is bound by Swiss law. And they have not acted that way.

Strawman again since that is not what @happybeing said. You strawmanned it by switching the logic around to make a different statement to argue about.

Only if someone raises a concern are they bound by “Swiss law” (if they become a regulated entity). Still requires people like myself to hold Maidsafe to their contractual obligations.

Was a question. Just wondering what he determines who is ill informed. How he is making such a informed separation of the individuals.

Learn about foundations and the laws that govern them and then you will realise your error.

We all knew what he was saying. It was an obvious attempt at discrediting his statement and straight out of the troll handbook

I don’t know what he is saying, therefore I am asking the question. Is that okay neo? can I ask questions?

You know you can, and so does others. But using the troll handbook to discredit is not asking questions is it, its attempting to discredit. The same as your little statement statement/question trying to act the victim being silenced.

Everyone knows ill informed does not equal different view. The same as everyone knows you can ask sensible questions here even if the answer does not suit you.

Both those posts were attempts at discrediting people. But of course you know this already.


Still fails to answer the question of how he determines if someone is “informed” or “ill informed”. The fact his statement ends with “makes this worse” seems to me (in my opinion) to aim the statement at those that do not agree with this RFC. So for the sake of clarity I asked a question.

Feel tree to discredit me as a troll for asking for clarity, it’s fine I don’t mine.

You can’t discredit someone for asking a question so that clarify their point. Lets be honest his statement is rather vague.

1 Like

Just dropped an interesting topic in Meta
I share it here since many don’t have that category on their home page for the forum.

If the shoe fits …


Now I think that is an accurate post and well-timed.


Asking one question is not persistent. What an interesting interoperation of this situation you have.
The rest of my comments have been answering question upon my views.

@dirvine Is my concern being looked into within maidsafe, or is the intent to pursue this RFC? I would like professional response.


As a neutral party, no dog in this fight whatsoever, I see two parties looking at the same facts with different opinions.

An RFC was submitted, which is literally a “request for comment”. Yet I see very little if any will by the author(s) to take feedback into account and actually consider changing the wording of the RFC. If I missed such, sorry.

Frustrated by this, certain party(ies) have become more strident in their efforts to be heard and have their concerns addressed.

The addressing has been patient at first but later substantially of the form of “go away”, “you are trolliing” and the latest “you are sealioning”. I find these responses more akin to namecalling than anything else. I believe all parties to be acting in good faith and desiring the best outcome for the project.

I think that a serious concerns have been raised about:

  1. Altering the max supply from what was stated before investors bought in.
  2. Altering the percentage ownership of existing hodlers which could open the project/company up to potential risk (lawsuit) down the line. vs instead altering percentage of potential future hodlers, who importantly are not yet invested and have no standing to complain about something being changed after they bought-in.

In particular, I have seen point (2) raised in a couple different forms in this thread, and I don’t believe I’ve seen it addressed head-on by anyone from the “keep RFC as-is” camp.

To me, it seems cleanest and fairest to keep max supply 2^32 as promised, keep existing hodlers percentages unchanged, and only alter percentages for newcomers with no skin in the game.

At the least, I would like to see the “keep RFC as-is” camp address if this is an approach they would consider, or if not, why not?

I am not deeply immersed in the details, so I may well have missed something important. Just calling it as I see it. and again, I have no dog in this fight, don’t care much either way, just giving my perspective as a neutral party.


You entered into a contract with the crowdsale participants to deliver 10% of “all safe coin” in exchange for 429,496,729 MaidSafeCoin. You were happy to enter the contract at this point.

Let’s be clear, its business, not personal, not a game, not magic internet money, this is the real world. The title of the property of “10% of all safecoin”, were created at the moment the ICO took place. Delivery of such property can be postponed, but it still belongs to the owners of MaidSafeCoin. Is this situation being addressed in-house as we speak, or do you intend to breach contract with holders of MaidSafeCoin?

@danda That is spot on.

Of course, says one from the keep camp. It is a worthy solution. But we could debate this ad infinitum. At some point you have to cut bait. Go with one or the other. They both have merits. I, for one, am glad one has been submitted. Let’s see how that flies with the relevant authorities. If need be, we can shift gears later.