Ok, so all is fine in lala land?
- the service provider contacts a number of farmers (not DIY, datacenter-based farmers) in the required region and start negotiating price and Service Level Agreements (uptime and penalties being the main components).
- service provider and farmer agree on service terms and conditions for capacity availability, price etc. and sign a contract (peer-to-peer - no ThreeFold involvement).
You are joking right?
The more a learn about this project, the less I understand it.
Your example shows there is a sharp distinction between ‘datacenter-based farmers’ and DIY.
Datacenter based (negatives)
- No Decentralisation
- No passive income (need to negotiate SLA’s and lobby with Service Providers)
- Risk for Farmer (accountability, liability)
- No Internet by the People for the People (high barrier to enter)
- No New Internet (what is new here? This is how the market operates already).
- Payments for Services will most likely go peer to peer (so not resulting in demand for TFT on the open markets)
What is the added value of a TF based infrastructure in this market?
I completely fail to see how the model of datacenter based farmers will connect the underserved communities to the Internet, or provide decentralisation in a fundamental way. This all is not a solution by the People for the People IMHO.
DIY based (negatives)
- No (guaranteed) Service Levels
- Risk for Client (deployment / data loss)
- Low utilisation, thus added value to the ‘New Internet’ proposition
- Complexity (in some countries impossibility) of buying/selling TFT on open markets for all parties involved
- Low income for Farmers
What is the added value of this proposition for the DC market?
I also fail to understand how the Tokenomics will work in this two tier model as I fail to see where value is created.
I repeat what I wrote in an earlier message. It looks like this is indeed the model that TF envisions it seems:
Alternatively, TF could forget about ‘consumer level’ nodes, and only work with partners who want to invest in ‘mini-datacenters’ world-wide. This looks a bit like ‘certified farming’, but working with professional partners will keep out consumers who think this is all going to be easy money (so disappointments).
Let’s look at this from another angle:
Utilisation currently is 0.5% (of which part is from TF itself), 6 years since TF started communicating their solution is better as sliced bread.
TF has announced a number of partnerships, of which many (most I hope) where aimed to increase utilisation. Specifically OwnCloud was supposed to start with a decentralised storage option, bringing 10K clients to TF.
Please tell me why utilisation is so much lagging and why partnerships didn’t yet come to fruition (in terms of utilisation) ? (I still did not get an answer about OwnCloud).
Maybe an answer helps to understand why utilisation is so low currently.
But don’t tell me it’s because there is a ”crypto winter” as crypto and hosting markets are completely different, and your example would work fine even without the existence of crypto.
It will most like be we are not ready yet, still in beta, we first build and then sell, no budget for marketing etc.
t’s still unclear what, to me at least what will be build in practical terms and what will be the added value and for whom? I lost track…
This is what I heard for years now. I understand the issues with resources like funds, but what is and what has been communicated to the outside World seems more like a distant dream than a current reality .
It fails to explain why the ‘professional’ farmers also show very low utilisation.