With respect to this whole thread and future ones, if you want to provide constructive criticisms on the emission curve, at least give it some decent thoughts. Repeating what you read on Reddit doesn’t count.
To be more specific:
- At a minimum consider the loss rate when building supply curve. Ever wondered at which point 50% of those 21M bitcoins will have disappeared, for example?
- Compare with other slow emission coins. After 8 years, grin only has 33% more supply than bitcoin or, to pick something more recent, zcash. Argue why this matters (or not).
- Compare with fast emissions coins. Monero had over half emitted in 17 months. How does that affect long term adoption? How about use?
- Rich lists and coin decentralization. What affects them.
- Analyze average crypto user and investor behavior. How does multi-year emission curves, fast or slow, influence them? What are the real adoption drivers, both long and short term?
- Do not use econ101 in your arguments. That can be used to argue anything and its opposite equally well. And before telling us we don’t understand economics, convince Nouriel. Then maybe I’ll listen.
- Consider different strategies and how they can play the strengths or weaknesses of various blockchains. What is the effect on Ethereum when daily supply is hard forked for example?
- Facts and real research. Unsubstantiated opinions are a nanogrin a dozen.
The grin team is earnest, if you can provide well substantiated real research that shows a different supply curve would be be better for grin, we will most definitely listen. But don’t think you can flyby post your knee-jerk reaction 5 min after having heard of grin, which we’ve spent the last 2 years building, and expect us to listen to you.