Gotta love this man 
2 Likes
exactly, it’s unfair and complicated for nothing. we can afford to lose the circulation 1year of dividends on a 20 year emission rate. It’s impossible to avoid people losing coins so for that reason after 20y there always will be a small block reward to compensate lost coins.
2 Likes
Further to that, it’d be great if the emission of dividends was measurable, perhaps a website that can monitor it graphically would be cool.
1 Like
the amount of $ SFT # SAFEX Token locked in directly contributes to the amount of # SafexCash being pumped out as # dividends , the more locked in as well as the sales volume = more rewards . One could say locking in transfers value to $ SFX . locking or unlocking will directly effects the demand/price for # safexcash just something to put in perceptive with this topic
1 Like
I don’t see how people needing to keep alive their wallets is unfair
It’s not against any rules or previous promises. yes it was known that tokens have to be locked in to receive incentives but i see it as the precise proces in this was yet to be determined. and that is why we need to discuss it now.
And i dont feel any holder/invenstor should automatically be entitled to a care free life of passive income. i know it would be nice to have money comming in without worries. but take this in consideration:
in our normal non-crypto life we have all kinds of income, priveleges, entitlements, property, insurance, savings.when one dies all of income and priveleges are stopped or lost, and all our properties and savings are transfered to our relatives. this is all taken care of by a system of regulation/law or notorial deeds or contracts. My bank is one of the first ones to know if I die. When i’m a dead man i wont have an active stock-exchange-acccount with receiving dividends. When i die my account is beeing closed and my stocks are sold or transfered to my wife. In life i don’t need to wory about this (i don’t need to keep my savings account alive) because i know it will go to my wife when i die.
We don’t have that in crypto. So we can’t tell, and we don’t have a way of knowing by the system, whether someone died or is just somewhat inactive or on a very long holiday or in a hospital. So people need to take care of their entitlements and property by themselfs. And need to think of a way of transferring them in case of death. So ‘keep alive’ may sound unneccesary complicated but its inherent to and a result of the people wanting things back into control and take care of themselfs, in stead of a controlling system.
Yes it would be shit when i get into a coma for 3 years and after that i would have to find out i did not get any SFX. So if I dont want that to happen, i need to be sure my wife also knows how this shit works. If you don’t have a wife you make a manual, put you keys in it, put it a locker at a bank, and make sure it gets to the right person if something happens.
I think we all agree that when someone dies and is collecting huge amounts of SFX would be a bad thing. So we need a system like this. Sure al claimed SFX are yours. But we have to stop ghost accounts from collecting huge amounts.
Besides that. Things change. Protocols can change, rules, technology.
When my bank changes something in their userpolicy, or their need to send me a new card, they send me letter. Since in the safex system we don’t have a way of contacting people; we cant reach people if they really need to do something or anything changes.
So i think in crypto, and surely in the safex system, people (users and token holders) should be very aware and involved in whats going on, and take a look at their wallet every now and than.
Some other project i’m in is having people sending an opt-in transaction every month. Now that is a bit to much i think. What would be ideal is a 1 year period after my last activity in wallet if that is feasable performance-wise. Otherwise a 6 month or 1 year lockin period is pretty ok i think!
4 Likes
I’d wake up pissed af
However, in that case; some kind of automation solution must be made. And it is personal.
Let’s think some more about this before drawing any conclusions. 
All sides of the dice are completely valid in the sense that ghost accounts sink sfx, yet you dont want to miss out. Yet… yet…
The good thing is that this is not difficult to enable/disable coding wise. By default we are including this keep alive possibility.
Thoroughly valid points @Thomas
4 Likes
Partly agree, but if we take extreme examples to analyse a possible solution we would never take a decision. Collective is always more important than a extreme and low probability isolated case, SFX going into the void because of a whale forget his private key can hurt more than a guy losing some weeks of dividends, and oh you won’t lose SFT or already collected SFX it won’t be a huge loss after all
2 Likes
Personally, I think this shouldn’t be solved in the wallet or by Balkaneum for that matter. This should be a (payable) third party service.
1 Like
I don’t think I understood correctly. even if only 1sft is locked the amount of Sfx payout is the same, only discriminant is volume.
1 Like
sft pays out more sfx depending on sales and how many you lock, thus the value gets transfered in lock mode to sfx
1 Like
Yeah, crystal clear
1 Like
I’ll shim in one more time.
First, and for-must this is all about guarding the currency SFX from ghost wallets period !
Nothing else !
Second, is to achieve this in the most simple unobtrusive fair matter possible.
This is not about worries about how active or inactive SFT holders will be.
My view of a best implementation of this safeguard is;
1- a claiming system.
That means that after locking in SFT, there still needs to be a claim made for SFX to get inside the private wallet.
2- a reasonable (to be determined) max period of time locked SFT earn SFX, it starts at first locking and is reset at every claim being made.
3- after max period is reached, locked SFT stop earning SFX, and now enter a grace period (lets say 6 months) awaiting to be claimed.
After no claim being made past the grace period, they are returned at the same rate they were accumulated, back into the system, but can still be stopped by a claim for what would be remaining at the time of the claim.
So if this was so;
I first lock in my SFT, they start earning SFX for max (2y).
At anytime I choose, inside that (2y) I make a claim for the SFX to become in my possession inside my wallet.
The (2y) always gets pushed back (reset) every-time I make a claim, be that daily, weekly, monthly, yearly,…
This way the system is protected from GW, but also your locked SFT don’t stop earning SFX unless something bad happens + you get a lot of time to collect if you somehow fix the problem, and also you have just regained the ability to earn SFX again and a healthy SFX !
Some might say it is not OK to take back the SFX.
First they are not claimed, second it is no worst then stopping locked SFT from earning more SFX after a period.
I think everyone would be a winner with a system like this.
No grace period, imagine if btc was designed like that, would have been a complete shitshow. I agree for the sake of collective good to stem ghost wallets with a keep alive function, unlock an relock yearly or whatever interval of time will be chosen. There is no actual need to take back a single lock period of sfx. I dont think any math model would suggest that will be a danger for liquidity if that would happen.
Less restriction there will be better it is, none of us like coercion in real life and i dont see why we should rack one’s brains to impose limits and conditions if there isnt a real need of it.
3 Likes
What your really against is the claim system ?
“unlock an relock yearly or whatever interval of time will be chosen.”
I would like to know how exactly this would work, so that I can judge it better.
I am also for less restrictions but would like to know how this would be less restricted.
ex; if there’s a monthly keep alive ?
I’m just a little baffled that every body is fine with unlocking someones SFT essentially depriving them for however long that period might be.
Again I stress, this is to safeguard against GW.
If the numbers show the danger is minimal, we can come up with a fair less restricted deal.
Don’t get upset, were’s just brainstorming on this 
1 Like
We were discussing about that in order to avoid the possibility to lose a massive amount of Sfx in dead locked wallets. And if you lock you will have to periodically unlock and lock it again to keep collecting SFX. You suggested to take back SFX if such person that already is not collecting anymore incentives from the network do not claim it in a period of time. I say that such move is unfair. It’s complicated to enforce and it doesn’t solve a problem. We are not here to take what is rightfully under others property.
2 Likes
The difference is that with a method you are not allowing people to get more SFX if they do not say: hey I haven’t lost my wallet it’s all ok. With the other you are taking back 1 or 2 years of their effort without their consent. It’s basically robbery.
2 Likes
I get it I do.
But it is not as cut and dry, witch one is better if we make scenarios.
(I would like to find something in between).
(My system can also just let the SFX stay unclaimed indef.)
Imagine there’s a monthly keep alive… you get in a car accident and your out for 6m.
You get deprived real quick of SFX without your consent !
“not allowing people to get more SFX”
How is this better ?
See what I’m saying.
We have to find a balance that just achieves a safeguard and no more.
What I’m really doing right now is to get people to flesh out their arguments.
The pros and the cons…
And get better understanding myself.
1 Like
It’s better because one is not depriving you of what you already collected the second is already doing this and potentially taking your earned incentives too, it’s not about pros and cons if you consider math. There is no need to do take back dividends, what would be the point? Greed?
1 Like
The keep alive interval wont be so little, not 3months not 6, minimum 1year if in a whole year you are not capable to to a simple unlock and lock again you do not collect anymore divs but nobody can wipe away the collected ones.
p.s coma, death, etc are extreme conditions and we should not take this examples in to legitimate a decision that take place on people acting different the vast majority of time. in my opinion.
3 Likes