I may have tried harder than any of you to announce Grin voice so far. I had mistakes too in past. However, I have the opportunity to admit my mistakes and correct my mistakes. I recommend this to all of you. Admit mistakes.
It’s strictly more fair than rapidly declining emissions (for obvious reasons). I think you want it to be fair to miners, but they’re not investors, they run their own business and do it to get profit (which is still possible with grin, just if they didn’t hold it).
I don’t see any connection between grin’s hype and hype of eth in 2017 (ICO mania).
I agree that grin will die one day (everything will).
Grin is related to time, the fact that grin’s total supply s converging towards number of seconds since genesis block is relation by itself. It’s fine to not like that property, but it is there and that’s a mathematical fact.
If i had to guess, the initial grin’s pump was because people didn’t understand linear emission.
I think it’s disrespectful to say what Ignotus would want today since it’s a total guess and there are other people who are still around and knew him more than you did.
“Right now probably Ignotus Peverell would have accepted all of this and offered a development example. However, the remaining Grin community is not capable of doing so.”
Not sure what you mean with this.
“New monetary policy should, reduce the inflation pressure and protect the investor from the first moment. After, inflation reaches a certain level, it will continue to constant.”
What you’re protecting here is miners (yourself), not regular investors. And you’re protecting them from making bad choices (hodling). Imagine i go to casino, start playing poker, lose my money and then tell everyone that i don’t know how probability works. Will the casino return the money to me? No, it’s my own fault that i don’t understand the math which is needed to earn money at poker.
Nice article. On some lines I agree, and on some lines I do not agree.
Constant Block Reward Is Not Linked To Justice
Grin Also Might Be a Hype Coin
Grin Is Not Equal to Time Also It Is Not Time Coin
Grin = time is completely meaningless. Just for simplicity, it can be expressed as 1 grin in 1 second but you can’t show this with mathematical equality (=)
I completely agree.
Grin Will Die Too
In the narrow sense only creatures die. In a wider sense the definition of dying is not sharp. I do not understand the connection of inflation and 2%. Bitcoin, Ethereum, Monero have already died ago, because of to inflation unter 2%? Died like Chuck Norris, but till now the Death didn’t have the balls to tell him?
I see the point, if there is a lower limit of inflation that lets bitcoin struggle before the last halving in 2140, then grin will mathematically reach this point too, but only later.
Suggestion for Future Projects
I see you think future projects should have investors again. Do you like XRP and CBDC? I do not understand the purpose of Kaspa, but I already tried. For Mina I will try to find out more, because I understand, that very small data has a benefit in a distributed ledger.
This is one of the purposes of the emergence of Grin. With prolonged Monetary inflation, being able to keep its network secure unlike Bitcoin, Litecoin, Monero, Zcash.
Below 2% inflation, it is insufficient to secure the coins and the network will be at risk. These deaths haven’t happened yet, but theoretically, POW coins are going to dead. Block rewards are decreasing.
What is Elon Musk knowledge about this? Nothing. He try to show Doge’s good. Like how you guys try to show Grin is good.
Mathematically, linear emission cannot have any effect when inflation falls below 2%. What are you still talking about?
In what way is it fair? Impoverishing everyone who invested in the first 5 years? The only fair thing about Grin is its fair launch, no developer share and no ICO.
Other projects can make everyone rich in the first 5 years, Grin made everyone poor for the first 5 years. It’s not about fairness. Grin also has the potential to make early investors rich, as inflation dwindles over time. However, this term starts 5 years later.
You know, I consider too what you and people like you do to be disrespectful. By not admitting mistakes, you are defending false information. You have to be a little honest and admit mistakes. Nothing can be improved without criticism. Ignotus created Grin, focusing on the shortcomings of other projects. Don’t forget this.
It is impossible to make everyone rich in the first 5 years, where one gets rich the other gets poor. The fairness lies in equal opportunity to buy, meaning supply has to approximate demand. Linear supply provides way more equal opportunity to buy in early or later than any coin with decreasing supply. One mistake in reasoning is to think in terms of dollar value. Grin is a new long term store of value system. A wise investor dollar cost average buy in and will always have bought for a reasonable price.
Are you reasoning that on the long term emission will become to little proportional to the total Grin supply? First of all, for emission to become equal to 2% inflation, that will be in 50 years from now! I suspect 99% of the current crypto projects to have inploded by then because they lack linear or tail emission.
Regarding Grin, you by accident or design ignore the loss rate. Inflation will approximate the loss rate. E g. If there would be a loss rate of 2, Grins security would become 2% which is infinitely better than for any coin with halvings.
Regarding your use of “Igno”, I think if he/she/they would bother to read you article or post they would say
Where is the difference to the situation above 2% inflation? Why that “2%” number? Is it calculated or measured? Is it because Central Banks define their target inflation with that number? Inflation is a word with very different meanings.
Overall he’s very knowledgeable and i believe he likes doge because it’s a meme (he likes memes) + it has fixed emission (not from the start though) in which he sees value (as do i).
Not sure what you mean with that. Maybe the amount of miner’s rewards per block? If yes then i believe that one day incentive to mine will be to secure people’s wealth instead of only doing it for profit as it is today.
Let’s divide time in 5 year intervals. Inflation rates at the start of intervals for first 50 years in grin are (100, 20, 10, 6.67, 5, 4, 3.33, 2.86, 2.50, 2.22, 2.00). Now compare the neighbour values in this list (points in time which we can count as “the same generation”). By far the biggest difference is in the first 5 years. This means that it’s the most unfair (accumulation-wise if looked at % of coins you get based on its current total emission) in the first five years, since person A who hears about it at launch can accumulate higher % of total coins than person B who’s heard about it in year 5. I don’t consider it fair if someone who has heard about grin in year 1 can become much wealthier than someone who’s heard about it in year 5 (the time person hears about grin is random, rewarding people for getting better random number doesn’t sound like a good thing to me). The “not random” part is their decision to invest or not and that’s the decision which should make (or lose) you money. Due to very rapid printing in the first five years (in relation to current total emission) it’s extremely risky to invest in grin. But isn’t the same true for bitcoin? Here’s a list of % of coins emitted in 5 year intervals (compared to 100 year total emission) in grin (1%, 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%, 35%, 40%, 45%, 50%). On the other hand bitcoin’s list looks like this (12.5%, 56.3%, 81.2%, 91.6%, 96.8%, 98.6%…) → note that that’s only the first 25 years, not 50. So bitcoins mined in the first year will have big value if bitcoin succeeds while grins mined in the first year will have more than 10 times smaller value at the same marketcap in 100 years (even less later). So bitcoin’s early investors (miners or buyers) are rewarded way more (so risk is lower) than grin’s early investors. Since grin makes early investing more risky (“second” list) and has better “first” list (neighbours are closer) it’s in my opinion strictly more fair, as it diminishes the above mentioned randomness.
It starts X years later (could be 5, don’t know) but it rewards way less the “X years late early investors”.
I genuinely don’t think linear emission was a mistake, so i personally have nothing to admit (i wasn’t around when decisions were made, so i believe that i have lower probability of bias than someone who was).
Ignotus implemented mimblewimble protocol which i think is defined pretty well, the most important decision of him might have been to go with linear emission and, since he was likely a very smart person, he likely knew at least to some extent how harsh the first years would be on the price.
I’m not sure what’s so confusing about the emission schedule. It wasn’t a “mistake” that anyone would have to admit, it’s an experiment that has to run for decades to see if it failed or not. Even if it fails, you simply declare it a failed experiment, there’s not much to “admit” really. The fact that the community shrinked is a thing that’s outside of the protocol or the experiment itself. Sure, it’d be nice to have more devs, but the protocol wouldn’t have a ton more shiny features even if we had them. It would have more network effect though, which is important, but I’m not convinced most of us would change the emission for this.
Regarding fairness, it is about mathematical equality. For that, you need equal numbers somewhere. You can do it in at least two ways:
Have equal value emission e.g. 5 coins per block
Have equal value inflation e.g. 2%
I think both are interesting and 2., as mentioned already, would need a premine or a transition after some time. Grin chose 1., with a trick that it set the number of coins to equal the expected number of seconds to find a block. It thus works as an approximation of a counter that counts seconds passed since the genesis block. If you do the math, you’ll see you get a fairly good approximation despite a slowly mined block after genesis, a reorg due to inflation and a DAA with slower adaptation than we have today. There’s a reason Satoshi referred to his construction as timechain, it’s because blocks follow time and come in approximate time intervals of 10 minutes in case of Bitcoin. If you sync block issuance with block time, you get a time-synced asset. If you know of a better (more precise?) decentralized and trustless clock-based issued asset, do share.
One referance too from me; Igno: Grin is in good hands. No. All developers left and the community here knows nothing.
None of what Ignotus said 4 years ago came true. In fact, the exact opposite of some of them happened. You continue to talk about theories and hope for the future. However, the facts that took place in 4.5 years show the opposite.