I pertty much agree with what you are saying and share a simmilar interest in maidsafe, however I am not convinced this part will be true "Safe coins ultimate value will be based on the usefulness of the applications created within SafeNetwork" All of these ideas about who will be a farmer, user and investior are all up in the air and I see no reason why the current price should be supported, there is zero reason to think so since there is zero data on apps, users, farmers in relation to the ammount of coins (a massive ammount of maidsafe coins huh?)
http://nakamotoinstitute.org/mempool/appcoins-are-snake-oil/
Allthough I dont agree with everything at the nakamotoinsitute I do tend to agree with them in this article that there are some serious issues with "appcoins" but hey time will tell right?
This is also an interesing comment, allthough not directly about maidsafe:
"Bootstrapping the community?
During the Q&A portion of the panel discussion, Swarm’s Joel Dietz asked Barisser and Maxwell about the idea that alternative token systems could bootstrap a community around specific applications or use cases for digital currency. He noted the enthusiasm around Ethereum, pointing out that he just came back from the Ethereum Dev Summit in Berlin where people flew in from all over the world to be there because they believe in that particular alt-chain and token system.
“I’m interested in Ethereum, but you’re often selling hope and castles in the sky a little bit. People are free to do what they want, but I think it’s slightly unethical to sell a dream.”"
http://insidebitcoins.com/news/bitcoin-core-developer-greg-maxwell-has-ethical-concerns-with-altcoins/26952
Im not offering a clear solution here, but I think there are some problems with the model of appcoins.
In the comments of the snake oil article there is an interesting discussion and I like what Factom is doing with their "appcoin"
"The servers have Factom tokens for running their service, but they would rather have Bitcoin. Wonderfully enough, users of Factom have Bitcoin, and they would like to have entries in Factom! So the servers now can act like that centralized party! They can take Bitcoin payments, and convert them to entry rights for the users! When a user gives a server BTC, the server can convert the Factom they are holding into entry rights issued to the user's public key!
Servers now do not have any sort of special rights, other than their participation in the system allocated them Factom tokens. Anyone with a supply of Factom tokens can provide this service. Even the user. Or the Spammer. But it will cost them something, whatever it takes to get some Factom tokens.
Certainly Factom will get out into the market, and be traded. And the Factom Token's value will vary, and we will have to have a system to adjust the exchange rate of Factom Tokens to Factom Entries. So it isn't just the easiest thing in the world.
But the fact remains that to be decentralized, Factom must have a token. And our particular solution seems to work best with separate accounting for entries. But with these two tools, the Factom Application can effectively decentralize payments, and allow EXACTLY what you want (the user's ability to use an App without any special "AppCoin"). This architecture doesn't have to expose the users to the risks of the Factom token."
I hope maid safe will come to be but I doubt the safe coin can maintain the current prices, but hey I could be wrong.
