Below 1$ condition

Hi. If the price of the coin falls below $1, I propose to discuss the correctness of the basic hypothesis of the project.
The basic hypothesis is that there will be coin holders, as inflation will be low in the long run.
The risk of confusion: everyone understands that the life of any technology is limited(ICQ is dead, Skype is dying), so no one wants to wait 20 years, taking the risks of high inflation. Just for the reason that when inflation becomes acceptable, the technology will simply become obsolete.

If long-term sellers will be more than buyers, the price will tend to 1 cent. Who will use a coin that has lost 99.99% of its value and continues to lose it?

My hypothesis is that without holders, no coin can survive. The holders compensate the cost of electricity. If no one covers the losses, the project dies.
It is probably impossible to create an analogue of cash in the current environment, as the cost of electricity is too high. I would suggest making the project not cash, but an improved version of bitcoin with limited emission, making a hard fork. In my understanding, a coin with unlimited emission and high inflation is even more experimental than a coin with limited emission, as a coin with limited emission is better consistent with the short life cycle of technology and the psychology of people.

Sorry for terrible English


I would like to add. I think everyone understands that any cryptocurrency needs mass adoption. At the same time, we all know that in the crypto community, the majority prefers limited emission or small inflation on the horizon of 10 years. Without mass support of the crypto community, the probability of success is small.

The basic premise on which your argument is built is that new technology eventually becomes obsolete - true. However, the timeframe is important and fungible money has not been disrupted for 2500+ years - we’re still using coins for cryin’ out loud… 20 years is but the blink of an eye by comparison! And in fact, the 20-yr holding period will be to Grin’s advantage. It will have gone through the inflationary cycle by then so will be ‘ahead of the curve’ – literally. And time is the one thing no money – fiat or crypto – can buy. No to limited emission hard fork!

I disagree with the OP. See here for the reasoning.

The market will show who is right. I hope the development team will analyze the facts and figures and make the right decisions based on them.

I actually agree with u. Some mass adoption would be good. Also keep in mind that a new coin could be developed within a time frame much much shorter than a decade and that could make grin obsolete. We see it everywhere. MRI scanner have basically destroyed CT scanners

Theres beam for you limited supply fans :slightly_smiling_face::upside_down_face:


Beam have more chance to success than Grin, this is for sure!

If by success you mean anything that isn’t censorship-resistant money, it is completely irrelevant.


I am not agreed with this op

1 Like

It is a very good deal because it costs more to make it

If everyone starts holding directly, then chaos will begin for each coin, but we understand that this will not happen, since everyone will not be able to hold at the same time)

Is it more expensive, but the risk? Is he worth it?

I would like to know how well the project founders researched cryptocurrency users and their needs? According to my feelings, 90% of users buy cryptocurrency for two reasons: to invest(rich countries) and to save small savings from inflation(poor countries). All these people are betting that the popularity of the project will grow with a limited issue and this will lead to an increase in capitalization. 5% use it on the black market. I think only 5% of users dream of buying coffee for cryptocurrency. 90% of users will not buy GRIN due to high and unlimited inflation.
The success of bitcoin is related to the model: popularity - > more services - > more popularity. This is simple. GRIN’s mistake is that they build a model in a theoretical world without competition and where technology doesn’t evolve. No cryptocurrency will dominate for 30 years, all will become obsolete-the problem is in the architecture of the projects, they are not as flexible. For the same reason, GRIN appeared, which could not be implemented in bitcoin. Creating a project for 500 years ahead with unlimited emissions and high inflation, the creators destroy the most important thing - popularity. There is no problem in the limited issue, there is a problem in technology - when investors begin to consider the project unpromising it leads to sales and a drop in value. I’m not talking about short-term volatility, which will be in any project, I mean the long-term trend. Everyone wants value growth - miners, users, investors. But if the project can not become popular and effectively develop, meet the requirements of the time, it must die. It is foolish to fight against the laws of Economics - BEAM with an ugly financing model already has a larger capitalization than GRIN. I encourage developers to make mass adoption and popularity the main goal of the project. All the best projects will repeat the fate of NOKIA 3310: quality- > popularity - >obsolescence. Don’t kill popularity.

I think most people financially supported the project for the following reasons: 1 Development is more flexible, based on community discussion. 2. The most efficient financing model. 3. A scalable blockchain. 4. Privacy.
People who dream of unlimited emissions and the opportunity to buy coffee for cryptocurrency - an extremely small number. Personally, I invested $ 15,000 in the project. I’m ready to lose them. But I believe that it would be unfair if the investors who supported the project would receive only losses, simply because the founders decided to go for a break, ignoring all market signals. I do not urge to change something now. I urge you to be flexible and not ignore the facts.

The emission is unlimited but the inflation is not; it tends towards zero.

Ref: Grin Money Explained #4 — Exploring Grin’s Monetary Model | by CryptoProfG | Medium

Yes, you can buy GRIN for your grandchildren. But I’m not sure they’ll be interested in these outdated technologies.

It’s been almost a month since the release of mobile wallet GRIN
There just 7(!) reviews! This suggests a small community because the project does not meet the needs of the majority of users. But who cares? Programmers on a salary, miners mine and sell at once. Nobody cares. It’s sad.

1 Like

The success of a project for financial freedom is not measured by how popular it is among early speculators which you seem to (in my opinion, falsely) call “community”. The majority of people who are using any cryptocurrency wallet today are purely speculators. Very rarely are wallets used to use the coins as money because—you guessed it—there is hardly any cryptocurrency adoption.

There is no cryptocurrency out there that is meeting its “needs”. Decentralization and scalability is lacking in every project. The space simply isn’t there yet, but hopefully will be some day. Until then, we’re in the development stage. It’s sad indeed.


I think you’re very far away from reality. You need to go to Venezuela and tell people about the charms of high inflation, because only this will give them financial freedom. Let them not be confused by a small community-high inflation is only for special, smart people, not terrible speculators.