Fund Alternative: Pay in GRIN

I want to propose a different way of funding and that is to pay people exclusively in GRIN coins. The current funds will be used to buy Grin from the market ( or use from donations ) and pay for the future development. I never understood why a project would pay differently then in their own currency.

There will be no more arguments about who gets what % of bitcoin there will be no more hunt for alternative ways of funding. No more topics with the best arguments why we need to split the funds, no There will be 1 way: the GRIN way.

  • We will keep the same payout system as now
  • Nothing will change, besides paying in GRIN coins
  • People are freely to sell when ever they want.

This is perhaps not my best English written topic, but when i saw all these new topics about splitting the fund the work that been put into it. It make me wonder what is really important these days and those topics with their arguments made it pretty clear: bitcoin.

No such other topic is been made for a while now, no topics about how to increase the user friendly interface for grin, no topics how to improve the relationship with our current exchanges, no topics with the most best suggestions ever for grin, no, no just a money related topics again.

So to avoid all of these cashgrabbing topic: pay exclusively in GRIN and lets see who will stay and who will leave.

5 Likes

Highly risky, and it might actually negatively impact the price of Grin!
Having the large Grin funds in majority in BTC provides some level of stability, meaning there is a large fund that for many more years can support the Grin project. This also boost the value of Grin itself since it future prospect is more financially secure than many other projects. Although I am in favor of phasing in more payments, bonuses, rewards, challenges etc. being paid in Grin. The majority of the funds are and should be in Bitcoin in my opinion for the time being.

Actually, by providing more autonomy to the community members to fast track funding of deserible features and projects within the ecosystem, this should help in improving usability. E.g. funding of a webshop plugin to accept Grin payments, test exchanges, or helpfull code for exchanges to implement slatepacks in existing workflows. We as community could fas track such projects with the provided funding. The real challange though is always finding the people with the skills to execute them.

1 Like

Changing the currency being used will not magically make problems go away.
The problem is not bitcoin.

1 Like

The problem is bitcoin or the value that equals it. @antioch

Maybe I misunderstand what you are saying here.
It is not clear to me how denominating this value in grin would solve the problem?

He is meaning if you have more incentive about Grin,it would be better ,more trust.What he means,i think.

1 Like

I agree the problem is not Bitcoin.

  • Anyone who gets paid in grin can immediately convert the payment to Bitcoin or local currency.
  • Anyone who gets paid in Bitcoin can immediately convert the payment to grin or local currency.

I oppose this change. It has too much cost and complexity for its benefit.

EDIT: a simpler option would be to support the option to be paid in grin or BTC, with the conversion being done just for the funds being paid.

1 Like

Grin doesn’t even have multisig to be held in more people

It should be optional, but rewarded. If someone chooses to be paid in Grin, they should receive 5% more in USD value.

3 Likes

The “devs should be paid in Grin” has been debunked a million times guys… it simply doesn’t solve anything.

It is not necessarily about solving anything, but about sending a message. Not having that option at all sends a weird message in my opinion. Like this coin is only an esoteric experiment that isn’t useful for anything, not even for paying its contributors.
Not holding the fund in Grin is one thing. Not even allowing contributors to be paid in Grin is a different thing.

Converting BTC to Grin is better done by the recipient than by the council. The latter don’t want to deal with exchange headaches / outages or outright thefts.

I can get behind that point. The Grin portion of the fund is relatively small at the moment, but maybe that could be used for that in the future if more donations come in and price increases.

Is that up-to-date?

I keep seeing similar variants of this same argument. It’s always a half-baked proposal that seems to stem from the idea that a developer paid in Grin will have an extra incentive to drive up the price of the coin so that they can personally profit.

But every proposal so far is deeply flawed in that they all suggest something along the lines of just replacing bitcoin payouts with Grin payouts, leaving everything else about the requests the same. But regardless of whether the payout is in BTC, Grin, or Dogecoin, most developers are going to immediately sell the coin for their native currency (or another crypto that they want to hold onto). There’s still no additional incentive to try to increase the value of Grin.

I can think of only 2 ways we actually could use the fund to motivate devs to care about the price:


  1. Require all funding requests to specify the amount in Grin, and then pay out after the work is complete - either partial payout each month, or full payment at the end of the funding period (usually 3 months). If the price of Grin drops during that time period, then the developers don’t make as much money.

I believe this approach would be a huge mistake, because when we’re hiring developers, we want them focused on writing quality code. We don’t want them to have to worry about whether they will be properly compensated for their work. I don’t think you’ll get far arguing for this.


  1. Offer something like “ownership stakes” for core members of the dev team & community (core as in “critical” members - potentially, but not necessarily, the legacy “core team”). Determine an amount that each individual will receive, and a period over which the funds will be given.
    As an example, we could decide to pay Igno 100,000 grins over the course of 3 years, so that he receives ~2,777 grins each month. We would make this payment regardless of the work put in, and then he would naturally have an incentive to try to improve Grin’s market performance.

Historically, this idea would’ve been dead in the water, because a heavy focus on price makes Grin less distinguishable from the thousands of other coins out there. Obsessing over price can have all kinds of negative consequences, and often leads to marketing gimmicks and the constant chasing of fads & buzzwords like DeFi, dApps, NFTs, etc.

However, it’s hard to deny the effect that a perpetually falling price has had on developer morale. When I started working on Grin a few years ago, we had plenty of devs working on the core code, building out 3rd party projects & mining software. Cryptographers were focusing on improving the protocol. Community members were writing documentation. There were daily active discussions in the public grin channels. People thought Grin was really going to take off right away. Entire businesses were created to focus solely on Grin (e.g. Vault713, Cycle42, etc.), including an entire exchange built around grin.

Fast forward to today, and there’s next-to-nothing. None of those businesses are still around or focused on Grin. Keybase is only lively when there’s a big council vs anti-council debate. Github Pull Requests & issues stay open for months, sometimes even years. Technical topics are rarely discussed outside of the same 3-4 people, and questions often go unanswered. These same few people occasionally still come up with some cool ideas like coinswap, but then there’s a struggle just to get even the most minimal of feedback.

The entire dev community lacks the spark that once made Grin special. I know it wasn’t all caused by Grin’s disappointing market performance, but I’m confident it was at least one of the major factors. I don’t know if offering some kind of no-strings-attached paid dividends priced in Grin would be enough to bring that spark back to certain members of our dev team or not. But maybe something like that might actually be worth trying after all. Speaking only for myself, it’s certainly a much more appealing idea than it was a year or so ago.


Epilogue: I started out just by explaining how flawed the OP’s post was, but as often happens when writing thoughts down, I found my views evolving slightly. I didn’t intend to turn this into a separate proposal, nor do I think this should derail the existing conversations around the fund. But I’m ultimately deciding to post it anyway because I’m curious what everyone else’s thoughts are. It would definitely lead to some very tough questions, and perhaps it’d turn Grin into just another shitcoin™, which would be a mistake. But at this point, most of us are ready to try just about anything to change Grin’s direction.

7 Likes

BTW, is it even possible to donate Grin to the fund ? As far as I can tell it doesn’t support slatepacks…

1 Like

Well, all wallets (grin-wallet, grin++, IronBelly) do support a slatepack addresses, so that should not be a problem. But if you try to send it from an exchange that only accept copy pasting of slatepacks, yes that would not work.

What?

You can’t send funds without copy-pasteing slatepack messages (very user friendly lol) and the Grin fund only provides an address with out any slatepack messages.
grin1wm78wjsf2ws507hea4zqrcywxltjwhtgfrwzhdrr9l80l7tpz5fsj58lk0

Yes you can, it is a slatepack address. Meaning you can send over the tor network slatepacks back and fort, it is the same magic without the hassle of copy pasting and it uses tor for anonymity:

A Slatepack address is a bech32 encoded address, similar to those used in Bitcoin. However, Slatepack addresses do not touch the network; they are used strictly for transaction building between two wallets, and never appear on-chain or represent ownership.

Addresses are exchanged between parties to serve as instructions for how to complete the payment. Therefore, a Slatepack address serves a double prupose:

  • It decodes to a Tor address.
  • Acts as a key to encrypt the transaction data being communicated by Slatepack Messages (strings).

example address

grin1dhvv9mvarqwl6fderuxp3qgl6qppvhc9p4u24347ec0mvgg6342q4w6x56

Since Slatepack addresses are bech32, they can easily be QR encoded.

Addresses are exchanged between parties to serve as instructions for how to complete the payment. Therefore, a Slatepack address serves a double prupose:

  • It decodes to a Tor address.
  • Acts as a key to encrypt the transaction data being communicated by Slatepack Messages (strings).

=> Or wait, is that still an old style adress… not sure but it looks a bit compact

Developers that are only focussed on pumping the price would be a downside, but there are more factors. Developers that get paid in Grin get to test their work in a real world situation with skin in the game and adrenalin, not just on a testnet. Even if developers sell all the Grin immediately, which might put pressure on the price, it means that Grin is used for something real. The value of a network grows with real world use.

1 Like

So are you saying the Grin fund address is not a slatepack address since my Grin++ wallet prompts for a message ?