Because they will have to switch at some point in time. V2 won’t be attractive nor promoted, so they will have to move at some point in time.
Now, it’s better to do that before the minting reward goes down / calculation price goes up.
GEP Farming Start Price May 2022 (CLOSED)
1 Like
Hi @checkkill
@Geert answered quite well here.
So in short, V2 gives more rewards than V3, but V2 is based on difficulty. V3 is constant for 5 years.
As of now, if you can get more TFT on V2 per month, and simply join V3 with the lowest entry price when you want, it’s logical that farmers will stay on V2. But we need to move to V3 as it’s the new main grid. Note that V2 farms more per month as of now, but in the long run V3 will farm more as it will give constant farming rewards for 60 months.
So in short, I see two main ways:
-
Closing V2 soon would make those farmers in V2 go to V3, by obligation. As there would be no other Grid for their 3nodes than V3.
-
OR we can say: we increase the entry price of TFT in May, so if you don’t move your farm to V3 before the end of April, you will farm less tokens during the 5 years of V3. This would be an economic incentive.
Is that clearer?
Of course, to get more TFT, the simplest path is: stay on V2 as long as possible to get more TFT, and jump on V3 just before the entry price goes up.
Overall it’s a strange situation, because many farmers rushed at the end of January to get into V3 to get the 0.08$ entry price, but it stayed at this price for some months now.
So farmers on V2 don’t help as much the future of Threefold, as the future is now in V3. But they did get more tokens than farmers who went on V3 faster. But V2 farmers can still join at the lowest entry price for V3.
So in short, farmers that support the new grid didn’t get any advantage for doing so in terms of farming rewards.
Of course it’s understandable why V2 farmers stay on V2… they farm more tokens and they can move to V3 without any disadvantage for the time being.
Just to be sure, I will say: it’s not about finding if someone is at fault, not at all. It’s about finding a proper tokenomics that incites farmers to build a strong New Internet and that rewards them for their dedication to the project.
It’s normal that farmers want to get more TFT rewards for their farming. It’s Game Theory logic, so to speak.
Thus, I think we need to find a logical approach to the TFT tokenomics of farming in order to maximize the growth and adoption of V3.
Hope that clarified my first post.
*Edited typos
5 Likes
I agree …the real solution is to stop v2 farming at the end of this month. Otherwise the v2 farmers will stay and not migrate to V3 and this is bad for the project…
2 Likes
Or giving certificate for all nodes on farming id started before end of April to get +25% boost reward for early V3 node
I feel like we should keep the price at .08 as an incentive to add more node to the ecosystem. Since the price did not rise up pass .08 cent. If we raise up the price for farming but didn’t count for the raise of the tft price. It might make people purchase the token inside of adding more node. But I could be wrong about this.
I think there has to be a deadline for V2 soon! This is no surprise for anyone anymore and it has to be done. V3 is the future of the threefold network. Also 6 days notice is way to short, so i would suggest that you set the end date to 31.may as well as keeping the price at 0.08 til this date so all early adaptors receive this price!
After that the price should rise in accordance to the needs of the network and in accordance to the tokenomics of the project!
2 Likes
To be honest, I am quite surprised that farmers are still allowed on V2. I transitioned in February, because that is the way forward for Threefold, and I was told that V2 Would no longer reward any farming tokens.
Apart from what I lost because of the transition, I farm 40% less than I did on V2.
Reading here that some farmers (and there have to be a few big ones looking at the V3 total capacity) are still on V2 and getting better rewards makes me feel very uncomfortable.
You cannot allow farmers to remain on V2 for months and have the benefit of higher rewards, when the idea is to move the grid to V3 to the benefit of the project!
So I would vote for 0 rewards on V2 as of May and keep the price for V3 calculation at 8 cents (I don’t believe setting a higher price here will affect the token price on the exchanges…)
If the token price goes up, you should consider raising the reward basis of course, so maybe that should be the focus here. Not by pumping the token, but by promoting and marketing the grid.
The current global environment is not really cheerfully either at the moment, so I don’t see prices going way up in general…
Cheers!
6 Likes
I agree… i vote also for 0 reward on v2 as of May and keep the price at 0.08.
I regret now my migration to V3 if v2 will continue… i will find a way to go back to v2 with an other farming id.
1 Like
We’ll need another poll to decide that 
Unless anyone has process based objection here, I don’t see why it shouldn’t be binding.
4 Likes
I think now is the time to start talking about the token Price for June!!
GEP Farming v3 Start Price June 2022 and v2 Minting! - DAO - ThreeFold Forum
2 Likes
I understand the guys in v2
But the network must prioritize V3
So let’s give the fellas of V2 a nice warm welcome in v3 ASAP.
No more waiting
.
Price. Maybe we could keep the price down for investors who would lock the tokens for a period?
Like 2 years?
And a market price otherwise?
Peace
Daniel
What does not make sense for me is “setting the price”… it’s like saying BTC price is going to be X. Token price can’t and should not be fixed to USD. It’s a game of demand and supply. If there is demand the price of the token will rise, if there is oversupply the price will fall.
Now maybe I’m misunderstanding something here but please someone explain to me:
a) how is the price being fixed (except for the reward calculation, but that can’t keep the actual price afloat without interventions)
b) why is that good
c) look my thread on pricing competitiveness for TF vs popular platforms: Pricing competitiveness TF vs AWS and others
Don’t get me wrong, it’s all nice to keep the price at 0.08 or heck set it at 1$, but who’s going to rent the grid at that price? Even at the current price it’s cheaper (and probably more reliable) to just go to Amazon or some other provider.
I’m looking to use the grid for a project now, but I find it hard to explain to myself why would I use it? Examples:
Contabo 4CPU 8G machine is barely 7$/month. Same machine in TF WITH 40% discount is 22$.
Digital Ocean, minimal machine, 5$, where TF 12$, with 40% discount 7,3$.
So basically 2-3x more expensive. Would any of you miners pay your hardware 3x as much just because it’s “decentralised”? I’ll sell you some nice hardware I assembled for just 2x price, DM for offers.
Hi @sensorium,
thank you for the feedback. However, it seems that you mix up a few things. The reason for this might be ThreeFold not clear in its communication about what this ‘price’ exactly means.
Goal of this price is to define some ‘negative feedback loop’ in the system, in fact it is just a parameter that gives better rewards to early farmers. The earlier you come, the more rewards it will generate.
This ‘price’ used for minting (I agree, maybe better to call it something else), has nothing to do with the price that is used in the capacity rental process. That one is expressed in USD, but paid out in TFT. So increase in the TFT price does not impact at all the value of an hour of rental, expressed in USD.
For your remark on bigger sizes, I believe that dedicated nodes (where one rents one machine exclusively for his own purpose) will bring the answer to that, as renting a dedicated node comes with an extra huge discount.
I get it that the “price” is in a calculation which is used in defining TF/USD in terms of minting, I did see it being used in that context(and I said “for the reward calculation”) and that makes somewhat of a sense to say:
e.g. 10 USD = 1 hour of X machine = X amount of TFT all three being equal and base all other rewards on that (size of machine, etc).
Now that makes sense in an imaginary calculation just for the sake of making things having some baseline context.
What does not make sense is that this is also the current floor price on the market(at least from what I last saw). Because there is essentially no demand for TF capacity which normally would mean that the token price would plummet and “generate” demand. Which means someone is propping the price artificially.
But all this is not answering the very simple question, why is it so expensive? Having a dedicated machine price being “cheaper” does not help it, since many project start small. Then they evolve from that. Then you get to keep them in the environment. Where now you say to anyone renting anything below e.g. 50$/month go away we don’t want your business?
Also, because this is decentralised and you have no idea if a machine will be up next month (the farmer can just pull the plug with no notice), you probably want to deploy the system across multiple machines with redundancy, hence immediately you need to pay at least double(if not triple to be sure) for your deployment and there goes your calculation down the drain. At least on a normal hosting you can have 2 drives and you know if one dies you can ask the datacenter to replace the drive and the issue is fixed. No datacenter would pull a plug on a whole machine without notice and explanation and option to place the drives in a new machine if it e.g. dies. Here in TF you would loose all content, right?
This should shine on small machines/docker deployments. E.g. that I can deploy a single simple docker or a small VM for pennies would be awesome, and would drive innovation and new people on the project. And right now you have all the capacity and nobody is using it because it’s too expensive because you want the farmers to be happy. Well eventually you won’t be able to sustain to pay the farmers because there won’t be any more people buying into the token. Which is about the only reason someone would want to buy the token now… just hope for a “bull-run” because they see a growing number of farmers, right? I mean I don’t see much action in the forums with people asking questions on how to deploy, etc… one would expect the amount of devs dabbling with the project would equal the number of farmers, at least.
I’m not saying all this to bash on the project, I’m saying this because I’m genuinely interested in the project getting off the floor and actually using it for some of my projects because technically so far what I saw seems workable. Since I bought into the L0 validator scheme I would also loose $ if the TFT price would drop, so I’m advocating against myself here… in the short term.
4 Likes
Well, there is a reason why we ask for comments on the price 
. So thank you for your feedback !
I just mentioned the dedicated nodes because you mentioned that for bigger nodes, people wouldn’t cover 3 years of expenses. The dedicated node pricing solves this, that’s all.
For smaller nodes we believe that holding tokens to have a discount is feasible. But your feedback that it is still too expensive is valuable, and probably needs further investigation to refine the pricing model.
A few remarks though on your comments about availability:
- the model is conceived in a way that farmers should not suddenly disconnect their infrastructure :
this hardware infra is dedicated, unlike many other decentralized projects relying on ‘spare capacity’. - If they disconnect their nodes, they don’t earn tokens anymore
- a centralized model does not guarantee either full availability,you could ask the customers of OVH that ran workloads when the data center went into flames last year.
All in all, I agree that this pricing indeed needs more attention than it currently has, because it will be a critical factor for adoption. So thank you for your feedback, and indeed, let’s refine this model to make it a no-brainer to reserve capacity on the TF Grid.
Glad you see I’m just being critical from the point of view of a consumer.
Yes, having more tokens for discounts is feasible, but even with a good discount it’s still too much. Especially for something let’s be honest… experimental 
That sounds reasonable, yet I would like to see the calculation when you have it.
Yes, that’s somewhat true, but here an example, I was looking at a country with only a few farmers recently. A week later and one large machine disappeared. I think it was past the last payout, so the TF idea of locking earnings might be good, just needs to be balanced as 2 years as I heard is planned is not good for the farmers. I don’t know if you give some of the actual farming rewards to the miners(have not seen that being mentioned), but e.g. if a farmer has an actual load on the machine, a fraction of that could go to miners (just like transaction fees go to miners), and that could be locked. Thus a machine in usage would lock the extra TFT it generates as long as the contract is running on that machine. That would help keep that specific machine running. Once the contract is done the TFT gets unlocked immediately, thus giving an extra incentive to the miner to make sure that particular machine with the contract is working. If the machine is not running and the contract gets cancelled the TFT is burned. Maybe for a longer time running contract it could get released sooner, but so that there is always say 2-3 months worth of extra TFT locked as an incentive to keep that machine up.
That’s a straw man. I just gave you an example above how quickly a TF machine has gone offline. That does not happen so often in datacenters. And yet people will do DR plans, same as I suggested anyone serious about their load will do 2-3 machines for backup even in TF.
1 Like
Two years is a long time for any investment, especially if there is no income from it during that time. The big investors in the project will really have big costs. Purchase of equipment, rent of premises, connection to the Internet, electricity (in the European Union at the moment the price of electricity is very volatile, due to speculation in my opinion but this is another topic). It is good to consider dividing the period from two years into smaller periods. For example, six months. Every six months, the farmer should receive twenty percent of the amount. At the end of the two years he receives the last payment.
2 Likes
I think that’s a good point and it’s something that needs to be discussed with the TF community.
Thanks for your input.
2 years is too long in any way, I agree there completely. It’s much in the normal world, not to mention crypto. Maybe have a percentage be locked for 2 years makes sense, but not much. Because as I argue before the farming rewards are not realistic, hence they need to go down, hence you can’t then lock up much if any of the rewards normally given, especially not for 2 years.