At this point I’ll consider you a troll.
1 Like
It is your right. Please answer the last question. You are so supportive of this idea of high inflation. Exactly how much of your savings have you invested in the GRIN project? If you have invested 0 in the project, then your words are worth 0. How many coins do you have? Did you support the miners? I invested $15,000.
I don’t know why it was supported, but high inflation, I believe, will not affect the course so much. There are for example Internet payments, investments in banks, investments in projects.
Even if you could prove the inflation model was a negative (I don’t think that would be too hard to prove), you would still have the logical burden of proving that the bad inflation model is the reason the coin is doing poorly, that it is in fact causative. It might turn out that the difficulty sending or the project funding model is a more proximal cause of the coin’s poor performance. In other words, you would still have to prove the inflation model is the major problem with the coin versus a host of other problems. I have always maintained that it’s the ideological struggle over bitcoin and the future of cryptocurrency that is the real problem today. Being such a small coin, Grin is mostly suceptible to ideas about cryptocurrency at large than any minutiae about the coin. Even large projects in the top ten are floundering in this climate. As bitcoin hangs around unused mostly and heavily criticized, increasing its perception as outdated, passe, problematic and kitchy, the more people will consign the fintech revolution to the past-fad-bin, like ripped jeans in the 80s. In captialism, the majority value is speculative on future value, and stagnation and lack of innovation or forward movement is a death knell for any product. Crypto has caught on as much as it can with the current offering. Only a motive force woulld create motion. Bitcoin should have been publicly sacrificed as a grand old mare with tales and tears of how much we regretted her inevitable replacement by young technologies ‘too awesome to ignore’. But the thing is, with decentralization, you can’t have any powerful, rational, responsive management decisions. That’s the other reason the current arrangement can’t work anyway: if you can’t respond to environmental stimuli, your capacity for survival vanishes quickly.
In summary, any problems with details around a tiny project like Grin are insignificant compared to the massive unadressed problems in the cryptospace.
4 Likes
Yes, I agree with you. High inflation is not a single problem. For this reason, we especially should not abandon the support of the majority of users. Now 9 out of 10 people on principle will not support the coin, which has high inflation. There is a successful case of bitcoin with a fixed emission, and users are guided by it. And if the coin does not have a mass user, then new services will not be created. Any coin requires a huge mass support, otherwise the network effect simply does not work. Any emission model has drawbacks, but I’m sure limited emission is a lesser evil.
Any coin with high inflation remains only a public outcry, public support, discussion and so on. without this, this coin will simply die.
Bitcoin is young and barely tested and more likely to fail than succeed.
The cue ball is not so young, of course I do not understand this, but it seems to me that 10 (or 11) years is not enough already.
I’m awaiting at $0.5 to buy more 
which coins do you know which is older than bitcoin? Just wondering
1 Like
Ahah, well, these coins really can be called old. Founding, foundation)))
The team said volatility would be low as there are no speculative bubbles. In reality, volatility will always be high because it is technology.
The team said no one would sell a losing value coin, citing the example of a car’s depreciation. But a coin is not a car. The coin is liquid. These are all delusions.
Everyone can make mistakes. A coin with high inflation is like a Bicycle with square wheels. Don’t do that. No one wants to own it.
1 Like
The constant emission rate makes grin fair towards late-adopters, thus it alignes perfectly with the missions of grin (mission target “fairness”). Throwing the constant emission away, so early adopters can pump and dump, would undermine the credibility of the whole project. Grin is, unlike Bitcoin, no commodity. The Project is absolutely transparent about this. In the monitary policy (https://github.com/mimblewimble/docs/wiki/Monetary-Policy) it is clearly stated that there are already better store of values or “get rich quick” coins.
I don’t see any square wheels here.
2 Likes
The problem is not to earn quickly. The problem is that it is a startup that makes a product that is not needed by the market. It has no user support due to high inflation. There are no investors here, so the value of the coin goes to hell. This policy has turned miners into enemies who destroy value. I will tell you how it will be: this coin will continue to fall, and when the developers again ask for a salary, no one will support this dead project which has a value of a few cents and continues to decline.
2 Likes
Why do people insist on using the term store of value interchangeably with investment? A store of value does not have to increase in value; it just shouldn’t be volatile to the extent that people can’t be safe storing their wealth in that form.
A centralized supply gives the power to manipulate the price, making it potentially volatile. The harder it is for a single entity to gain a large fraction of the supply, the less cycles of pump and dump or even boom and bust we will see. This is largely why I think Grin is the best candidate for being the global store of value (yes, you read that right) out of all cryptocurrencies, i.e. the best crypto-money we have right now.
If you strongly believe centralization in any way is necessary for a proper form money (which may very well be the case), then you are wasting your breath preaching to the cryptocurrency community.
3 Likes
Your bike with square wheels is a bad analogy. You don’t own money - you are merely its custodian, hence the term “currency” - it’s intended to flow around the place. A giant bike-sharing scheme would be a better bike analogy and plenty of folk want that!
You didn’t answer my question, how many coins do you have?
Who will pay for the operation of this bike-sharing service?