Gresham’s law describes what happens when a government required the public to accept paper money or debased currency. People would save the Gold and spend the lower value legal tenders. Grin is floating freely against other currencies, and there is no question of enforcing a peg.
Bitcoin halving has contributed to its substantial market cap, which makes it a viable currency. It appears that Grin does will never get there if there is no halving supply shock driving up the value.
A supply halving shock is not needed to increase value.
If it was, Dogecoin would not have reached the $40 billion market cap.
Ethereum would not be the 2nd most valuable cryptocurrency in 2017.
Halving, decreasing supply, fixed supply is manipulation itself, and sooner or later anything that has it will perish.
People who accept this are not conscious people at the moment.
Real money, real store of value, must be in unlimited supply(If it wants to appeal to all people).
Most equitably, it should have constant incremental emissions or even, in the next step, incremental emissions over time.
Dogecoin has governance inspired by animal spirits, not cognitive processes. I see the 40b market cap achieved as a accident. Satoshi N did not intend to manipulate the market, I am asking about linear vs finite issuance because they may lead to different market cap outcomes.
The question of fee-based security is a very serious question, fee amounts for BTC are discussed in practice: Bitcoin: Fee-Based Security Modeling - Lyn Alden and here in theory: https://www.cs.princeton.edu/~arvindn/publications/mining_CCS.pdf
I will first take a hyper-malthusian view of the earth as a closed vessel with a limited amount of resources,(fixed amount of Gold etc) and a limited number of humans at 1e10 (10 billions).
[edit done one day after posting, to correct the amounts with proper order of magnitude]
If a currency that becomes dominant has a current purchasing value of USD1e13 (10 trillions), and this happens with probability p1 in the next 20 years, p2 in the next 20 to 40 year… etc. The present value of a BTC should be 4.7e5 if the probabilities sum up to 1. The maximalist story generates an incentive for hoarding . It turns BTC into a store of value instead of means of exchange.
Grin issuance is linear at 3.1e7 (31 million) per year, if we reach a value USD1e13 by year 20, there are Gr6.2e8 which corresponds to a value of $1.6e4 per coin, $8e2 per coin after 40Y, $5.3e3 after 60Y and $4e3 after 80Y. A linear issuance means 100% inflation on year 1, 10% inflation at year 10, 1% inflation at year 100, and 0.1% inflation in a thousand year.
So the optimist bitcoiner would pay 476k per BTC. The optimist grinner wants to pay an amount between $16000 and $4000 per coin and he should sell his coins and buy scarce assets as soon as he meets this target.
In a world with linear (not exponential) real growth, linear monetary issuance makes sense. Saving in this currency is not consistent with the view of a finite world, although it is consistent with the past monetary practice which has been operative in an exponentially growing world for the past 400 hundred years.
Hence my point that finite issuance incentivizes use as store of value and higher market cap compared to Grin.
Buying land is never a bad idea. But land is not useful as an everyday means of exchange.
Yes, it’s unique to grin. In the cryptocurrency competition, it must not be similar to other cryptocurrencies, and the ones that can beat Bitcoin must be different.
as a result, Grin’s monetary policy should never change.
是的，这是grin的独特优势。在加密货币竞争中，一定不要跟别的加密货币相似，能胜过比特币的一定是不同的。
Now the Bitcoin narrative does not want to replace the dollar or the euro, but the reserve asset - gold.
I would say that is the new narrative for Bitcoin. As you can read in the Whitepaper, it started out as
"Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System",
Although they also argue the proof of work is similar to gold mining it appears not to have been its main objective:
“The steady addition of a constant of amount of new coins is analogous to gold miners expending resources to add gold to circulation”
Arguably Bitcoin failed to become the digital cash its creators intended it to be and instead became another asset class [See this post]. Also note that what they describe “the steady addition of a constant amount of new coins is analogous to gold” actually fits the constant block reward of Grin and not Bitcoins decreasing block reward. It is little things like these discrepancies that reveal there were multiple minds involved in creating Bitcoin as a whole.
It is always humbling to look at the long history of digital-cash systems, Bitcoin and grin are just steps in the continuous process of exploration and improvement:
A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System,bitcoin failed,
Medium of commodity exchange,grin failed too.
If a cryptocurrency want to replace the dollar or the euro, the issuance curve is the expansion of the money supply as the number of users grows or the economy grows. However, Bitcoin is issued at a reduced rate, and Grin Coin is issued at a uniform rate, which cannot meet the needs of Dollar or The Euro. Bitcoin and GRIN, both essentially the same store of value.
If a cryptocurrency expands its money supply as users grow or the economy grows, it requires a centralized institution to regulate the issuance of money, which in turn contradicts a decentralized source of value for cryptocurrencies, which is a paradox.
The value rises, and the more bitcoin users there are; The value decreases and Grin Coin users are lost.it is two sides of a coin,This is the result of two cryptocurrency experiments。Gold has been produced for thousands of years，From a supply perspective, Gin Coin is more like gold than Bitcoin.
Eventually, grin coin became an asset class too,Otherwise, Because of the network effect of money,the value of grin is zero.
In addition to the software technical advantages (I don’t understand this), there is no need to rely on tranfer fee for the long-term security, and the intergenerational fairness of currency issuance, Grin Coin is unique and has advantages.
如果一种加密货币真正像want to replace the dollar or the euro，发行曲线是随着用户增大或经济增长而扩大货币供应。但比特币是减少发行，古灵币是匀速发行，都不能满足 dollar or the euro需求。bitcoin和grin本质都是一样的价值储存，
如果加密货币随着用户增大或经济增长而扩大货币供应，就需要中心化的机构调节货币发行，这又与去中心的加密货币价值来源矛盾，这就是一个悖论。
价值上升，bitcoin越多越多用户；价值下降，grin coin用户流失一个硬币的双面,双种货币实验的结果.
因为货币网络效应古灵币本质就如同比特币一样，要么也成为一种资产，要么价值归零。
除了技术上的优势（这个我不懂），不需要依靠手续费的长期安全，货币发行的代际公平，古灵币还是有很多优点。
