Updated: RFC 0061 — Safe Network Token Distribution

The shares in the BTTF special entity are I believe equivalent so the issue of SNT will be the same for both.


I vaguely remember that a share in BTTF was a fraction of a MaidSafe share. But I am not sure of this and I wanted to check this on BTTF site, but I can’t connect to it anymore because there is a new KYC procedure (well, not really new because it appeared several years ago but I didn’t really looked at it).

Does anyone know the conversion rate of a share on BTTF to SNT? (just to decide if the new KYC is worth the hassle).


Not all food, but my Avogadro’s for sure.


If I’m not mistaken these were the terms for the Bank-To-The-Future sales back in 2016:

2000 UK pounds bought 94 shares of BTTF. At any time after launch, each of these shares could be redeemed for 105 SNT if you didn’t want to hold on to your BTTF investment. There was a bonus of 2000 SNT offered for an early purchase of 2000 pounds worth of these shares and, later, another bonus of 250 offered for a subsequent purchase of 2000 pounds worth.

Edit: 4000 UK pounds worth of investment in BTTF got you .0138% of the company, which amounted to 187.9657 shares.

Data payments at inception (Resource Supply Reward)

70% remaining after implementation (Resource Supply Reward)

So the emission will be increased payment to the node operator or subsidized payments for uploading? . . or . .

1 Like

Yes, an upload would trigger an emission which would be paid as a supplement to the node op


Are you thinking at a static rate or fluctuating to help attract new nodes if need be?
Kind of like POS inflation moves in bounds to target a desired stake ratio.

Would that be possible.

1 Like

Better to ask @dirvine or @oetyng I think, but IIRC most of the routes discussed were schedule based rather than dynamic, simplicity and stability in mind.


Yaaay for KISS :slight_smile:


I think it would require human intervention unless there was a network metric that knew it needed to attract more users. It knows when to attract more farmers, i.e. when it’s running short of storage, but users are not a metric known yet. Perhaps there is some way, but then I suppose it needs to know how many folks are in the planet and when it’s got them all :slight_smile:


Yes I mean additional incentive to attract more farmers/node operators.

So the emission goes up increasing rewards to attract more nodes to be spun up if storage space is low.

IDK it may be redundant but it could be a little boost too.

I like that it provides a concrete reason for emissions, incentive to reach network requirements for storage.
Not sure there is currently a reason for emissions, it could run just fine on the genesis supply, or am missing it?


It’s really to satisfy the original whitepaper where we did state there would be 2^32 coins and what was to be released in the crowdsale was 10% of that. So there is a lot of coins to give out in some fashion that is fair (there was 5% for investors and 5% for core dev over time and 10% app devs).

It’s all a bit of a chore and @JimCollinson and Andrew have been working at it for months now to try and make sure it’s all fair.

They have done that with not too much help from devs, although @oetyng has given a ton of input. It’s always strange in MaidSafe as devs are just keen on launching a technically strong foundation network. Money is always the last thing :slight_smile: I kinda like that really, but we all know the importance of economic security etc. It’s just our focus is technical.


Yaay for world domination!!! :slight_smile:


I think it is clear that your core group of supporters here appreciate this fact, those who don’t have moved on. We would run nodes and participate for no rewards or even at our own expense.
My concern is people like that are scarce and for better or worse the crypto crowd will in my opinion be a huge help in bootstrapping the network, hopefully emissions will be low single digit annually over a very long period to not be a deterrent.
I will need to wait for that info to argue my point :slight_smile:


This is still a problem that must be fixed. The total maximum should be 2^32 as originally stated. I think I’ve pointed this out four times now with detailed reasons why but there has been no comment in response.

Yes. This means that the hardcap of 2^32 takes priority and should/must be maintained. It’s unfortunate that there was an error and slightly more than 10% were first issued as Maid. Oh well, no big deal move on.The problem here in this RFC is that you are trying to correct for that problem in a way that introduces another mistake (ie. Changing the hardcap to ensure what was an estimated target for initial percentages). Two wrongs don’t make a right.

We’ve read everything you’ve written, and respectfully, this is the response.

Your alternative, and this solution, have the same outcome, just different approaches, and one needs to be chosen. We’ve chosen the one we feel is easiest to work with, and move forward with.


Cross posting this in case it is the nub the problem:

For what it’s worth I agree with jlpell. The overprint should be corrected. Maidsafe benefited from the overprint by having some extra funding. Keeping the over print feels like having your cake and eating it twice.

Buy back the tokens and burn them.
Loan back the tokens and repay them from network royalties. There are lots of solutions to this problem.

Simply correct the initial mistake and continue forward.

The two approaches do not have the same outcome. Your choice is convoluted, ugly, and a poor decision. There are easier and simpler ways to correct for concerns with initial distribution optics/percentages.

I know that my tone has been rather harsh on this topic so please don’t take it personal. I’m just completely shocked that after all the amazing, talented, professional, and quality work Maidsafe has done over the years that no one sees how the proposed path is the disturbingly obvious wrong choice here. There is a weird disconnect between this poor RFC item and what has always appeared to be Maisafe’s ability to expertly navigate tough design decisions and make the right call to yield the best long term outcome for the project while also being inclusive of the broader community of supporters/enthusiasts/devs.


Seriously, it’s fine. Nothing taken personally! All taken in good faith.

You do keep on saying this without outlining the reasons why you think it is the wrong choice. The argument seems to boil down to “it breaks the law of crypto”.