If you believe that just because they say that’s what it’s for that must be the actual reason behind it, then I have a bridge to sell you. You don’t need a crypto token to do this. Tor is a perfect example of a project that has already accomplished a wide array of community relays without one, and it is far more successful than any projects that do use “tokenomics”.
Just allow anyone to run community federated servers discoverable via DHT. Hell you can even provide a token-less POW where enrolling a server requires some complex work to be done first as an anti-spam mechanism.
Have you read the article? If the intentions are only to incentivize server operators why are they going to take a massive 40% cut out of that incentive?
they will be locked in a smart contract, and only released once servers have provided capacity to the users, with the funds shared between server operators and SimpleX network, with operators receiving up to 60%
Because that would accomplish an entirely different goal?
This is an attempt to create an enforceable method for servers to exchange larger scale services for funding.
You can have both though. No one is forced to use this feature, and server operators could already give out donation addresses externally.
With what incentive? And I would be interested in an actual attempt to provide a design for how this could be implemented in SimpleX.
Not sure how this is relevant to boosting the diversity of servers.
Interesting that you left off the next sentence:
SimpleX network funds will be managed by smart contracts, and will be used for governance and development as defined by the contracts.
So, where is the scam? Can you use the information in the article to actually construct a viable scam they could pull off?
I don’t follow how the servers receiving 60% with 40% going towards governance and development means their intentions aren’t to improve SimpleX. Maybe my second reply was too black and white, but incentivizing and funding servers is clearly the primary goal.
How would simple in-app payments not accomplish this goal exactly though? Take payment, provide service has been a model which has existed for the entire history of… money, I guess.
I think if you quote the entire post you’re replying to, the system will remove it because you can just use the reply button, and take up much less space, and people will assume you’re replying to the entire post. The quotes are for replying to specific portions of a post.
I’m not totally convinced about how necessary that is, but I suppose that does make sense
SimpleX’s VC funding model is very prone to enshittification. I would not be surprised if this is just the first step down that path.
Not that Signal’s financial situation is much more sustainable, but it has thus far stood the test of time, and it has a broad base of support from which it can draw donations if things get rough.
Coudl your summaroze his points or explain how we enable decentraliced transactions without crypto currencies?
Many people just don’t want to be entirely dependent on some banks and big tech firms controlling all of our payment infrastructure.
I think you should reread what you quoted and how you responded to it because the answer to your question is in both what you quoted and your own question, but you are asking it as if it somehow counters what I had said in the part you quoted.
I have yet to se an in-house crypto project that has any real utility. There are two major barriers: (1) nobody wants them so they hold little to no value and can’t be spent anywhere and (2) if mainstream exchanges ever adopt them, it takes a while. Most are overt scams or at best they are just failed projects.
It would be nice if I am proven wrong, but like others here, I doubt it will be useful for the stated purpose, which makes me suspicious as to whether there is some other hidden purpose. As I said, time will tell.
Looks like the token is not from the SimpleX team. They’ve already said they are not releasing any token and that this one is likely a scam. If you use SimpleX, just ignore the crypto stuff and stick to the official app and site.
It’s from their website, are you claiming their site has been hijacked by a crypto scam? Their claims they aren’t working on a token are from months ago at the most recent from what I’ve seen, so unless they’ve said something since this has been on their website it seems likely they’ve just changed their minds.
If a VC-backed company with undisclosed investors and no financial transparency diverting resources from actually useful improvements to their project to implement a convoluted over-engineered funding strategy with dubious benefit at best, given the context of many similar projects using similar strategies to conduct scams and failed experiments doesn’t sound like it could represent the beginnings of enshittification to you, then I’m not sure what to tell you.
So you claim that current features will be indirectly “enshittified” by the existence of this new feature requiring too much man-power and resources to maintain (this new feature being one that generates funding for development btw)? Just want to be on the same page here.
Citation needed.
I will pose to you the same question I posed to lyricism:
They are going to run a testnet for “experiments”. They aren’t experimenting on users.
Service providers can also sign actual contracts to deliver services.
On their site (mirror), the section on “Why not existing Crypto?” is curiously worded:
The price of cryptocurrencies is determined speculatively, and not based on costs. The fact that they can be freely traded and transferred exposes existing cryptocurrencies and tokens to financial regulations.
Ignores the existence of well-regulated stable coins.
Side-steps the fact that SimpleX, the company, itself is bound to UK laws. And so, their voting rights & the 40% cut they propose to take to maintain the stewardship of this Community Voucher scheme itself is not unencumbered from regulatory purview.
I mean, read the disclaimer buried in the footer: “…details are subject to legal review”.
I understand the economics enabled by tokens (I’m a big fan of global stable-coin & micro-payment networks), I just don’t buy the reasons SimpleX is selling to us.
Obviously, relying on the legal system to compensate you when you get scammed is far superior to preventing scams in the first place through cryptography…
This is completely irrelevant to anything I said. Did you mean to write a separate reply?
But, you are basically complaining that they ignored the existence of stable coins, a thing that is irrelevant to what they are trying to design, and speculating about regulation. Ok? This doesn’t show that their design goals are bad or a scam.
