Funding Proposal 2: Bounty for a Hardware Wallet implementation - bounty?

That is correct for utilizing GRIN as payment. Despite the fact that we used the BTC payment concept, I don’t see any potential bounty hunters or new devs stayed with us.

This is your personal opinion, but I can’t think of another example of other projects, who refuses to spend its own coin for the project.

It is the same as Bitcoin’s emission schedule, and GRIN’s inflation is 3k $ daily worth, which is really small in comparison to many projects.

Then they’ll go anonymous and figure out what to do. We won’t deal with a lawyer or expert for a developer who isn’t skilled enough to use GRIN. GRIN sole purpose is ‘’ Transactions for all’

I’m not attacking you; rather, I’m responding to your points. I am the last person in this forum who desires drama. If you want to discuss inflation, I’ll DM you on keybase and prove it.

My last comment ‘’ GRIN should be used as payment in bounties’’

And that’s good. Accepting different views, including method of payment, is strictly more inclusive which can only help with dev decentralization. In general, I don’t think introducing purity tests is going to dramatically improve the situation as these usually inhibit options and exclude people more than anything else e.g. Bitcoin maximalism.

2 Likes

Imo if the fund has grin, then paying grin is fine and good. If the fund has BTC, then it should not exchange that for grin in advance or at payout.

If you do it at payout they would often just look like BTC>Grin>Grin>BTC>Fiat and everybody loses more money on TO fees.

If the fund exchanged BTC for Grin in advance, that would have been a bad decision at every point up until now, so most likely is still a bad decision.

5 Likes