Funding request should be at least paid XX% in Grin, we need your opinion!

Dear all, since we think Grin is a great project ready to grow its economy (grinconomy), we plan to at least pay Funding Request for XX percentage in Grin. We discussed this during the Grin Community council meeting of 17-08- 2021 and got a lot of positive feedback.

We should however also be realistic, not only think from what we as community members would like to see now but also from the developers perspective what developers would find ‘the sweet spot’ in earning Grin and as such getting stake in the project without being forced to exchange all their earnings for a living, which might result in losses if the liquidity is to low. The percentage we ask you to vote on is a start and will most likely increase over time as the liquidity of Grin grows together with its economy.

Whether you are a community member of developer, please think what you think would be a reasonable percentage for all involved parties. Below the voting you can elaborate and discuss why
Bounties are a separate topic and could for example be 100% in Grin.

Funding Requests should be paid at least XX% in Grin (please vote by liking the option(s) below):


a) Not needed, paying 100% in Bitcoin is fine, who needs to use his own coin


b) At least 5% (this post must be longer…)

1 Like

c) At least 10% (this post must be longer…)


d) At least 25% (this post must be longer…)


e) More, please specify in discussion (this post must be longer…)


My opinion is that since we should not try to 'build Rome in one day", we should start with a minimum of 10-15% and then move up to 20-25%. Depending on how the Ginomics are going, this can be fast, e.g. within the same year.

Developers are free to chose a higher amount than the minimum as a way of showing their endorsement of Grin as project. I do however believe growth has to be organic and not sudden or forced to avoid growth pains and inconveniencing developers, which we should not forget, we do not have in abundance. If you are a Developer yourself, we need your opinion the most.

In any case I think it is a great step to let developers have a stake in the project and phase in Grin in all payments we make as community.


For me the percentage doesn’t matter on it’s own. I need to understand the model or idea, how it leads to fulfil an aim.

I see some problems that probably could get solved.

  1. The needs of specific developers might be different. Some need fiat, some want BTC, some like grin, some are flexible. So for me it seems plausible, to get more or better developers, if they get what they need, want OR like.

  2. Future prices are not known, before future is past. So diversifying bounty’s or funding requests might be reasonable. If council can hold different assets. But than the Percentage would float. Just for example bounty is 1 BTC and 10000 grin and $5000. Than it would be possible, that one of the asset parts moons, raising the incentive. If one asset looses value the others, might still have value. If one asset looses much it is possible to restock this one.

  3. fixed percentages in grin might have interesting effects if they are negative (or beyond 100%). A negative percentage would leverage the incentive of the contributor to hold grin, before they contribute. Also an incentive to trade grin could get created, if developers are forced to deal with it.

a) sounds a little polemic for me, because: Since grin is for everyone and has no investors, grin is no ones own coin.


First of all, thank you for this great topic and idea. My personal opinion is that if a developer works for Grin, he/she is under the spell of this project. Therefore, it is not all about money for that person.

For example, I am not a developer and i do not expect any earnings from Grin. I do everything voluntarily. Some projects are more likely to go up with much higher hype than Grin. I see all of these, but I’m not going anywhere. I am always here.
Because, I caught to Ignotus. I caught to Grin. I got the magic of this place. I don’t want to go anywhere.

That’s why if we have developers who are truly committed to Grin, they can accept 25% of payments with Grin. If all of his/her financial income isn’t tied to Grin, 25% might be a negligible rate. They don’t have to sell. If they want to sell, they can sell the 75% rate(btc-usdt), which is 3 times more. Also, if liquidity increases, inflation pressure breaks at a point and bearish pressure decreases, then there is no reason to not pay with 100% Grin. Because if us and the developers won’t use Grin, who will? If we won’t accept payment with Grin, who will? Everyone should be asking themselves this questions.


To explain my vote. I think we should encourage, but not require. Grin is extremely volatile and will continue to be for years. There are also different laws/regulations around cryptocurrencies depending where you live. I’d prefer if we are inclusive of all options, but, I too would encourage people to pick a percentage of Grin if they were up for it.


It would make sense to me for a 50/50% split, BTC/grin.

Maybe the question is if it’s a 60-day rolling average for price, will part of the fund be converted pre-emptively or from btc to grin at the time of payout?


psa, i’m not a developer of any sort but here’s my 0.02 Grin :slight_smile:

I believe that a 50/50 split is most just and fair. The person being paid always has the option to liquidate their Grin or BTC if they want to at time of payment anyways and a 50/50 split at the very least demonstrates a vested interest in Grin and the ecosystem.

Maybe once the base percentage is determined, we could look at and see if a a loyalty reward system for developers would be an attractive opportunity to continue to take on new projects and continue help grow the Grin economy. This is at least how a lot of FAANG companies do it. Base + bonus/stock options to retain devs/employees.


I agree with your reasoning which I know is shared by many. I also do not like ‘forcing people’, I think many will chose to be paid a certain percentage in Grin anyway if encouraged.
At the same time, I do think a small percentage would increase the feeling of stake/ownership/belonging to the Grin project. What I learned from other communities like the Verus and Komodo community is that they thrive in activity and feeling of belonging by dispersing their coin throughout its ecosystem to both to developers and community members. We can learn from these projects.

Therefore I voted for 10% obligatory payment in Grin, since if a developer cannot accept such a small percentage of Grin, it simply means he/she has zero trust in the project and maybe is not the right developer for the project.

An alternative would be to set a default percentage to be paid in Grin but give developers the freedom to chose any other amount - so make it default, but not obligatory. In such as case I would prefer that the default percentage would not be to big, so developers can voluntarily chose a higher amount, which might be better to get their involvement than forcing it upon them :thinking:.

1 Like

I don’t believe grin’s price will go up until inflation rate lowers vastly (sov is usually the first use case for cryptocurrencies, it might happen that grin will be different because inflation rate reduces more slowly). So if the paid dev thinks the same as me it makes sense to sell grin he gets to buy more of it later, even if he thinks grin is a great project. I would give devs an option, especially until we have liquidity so he can dump his grin without loss (which isn’t the case now afaik)

1 Like

I heard this argument a lot, and of course there is some truth to it. However, one argument that is often overlooked is growth of the community and ecosystem (demand as @Cobragrin points out). The inflation is significant, but can be easily matched by growing the community and ecosystem of Grin.
Although I do not expect ‘mooning’ for Grin, neither do I think it can be assumed that the inflation will lead to lower lows in prices.

But I agree with you that there is low liquidity and uncertainty, hence I think a small percentage should be the start. Nearly anyone can save/invest 10%, but if this percentage goes up you might indeed end up with developers having to sell at lower prices just to meet their daily costs. Over time when the liquidity increases we can increase (obligatory or by stimulating) this percentage.

One thing we should avoid though is to be always be to much on the careful side. If we do not change things, or try to change things, neither will the status quo change. Meaning if we say liquidity is so low that we should not pay Devs at all in Grin, how can we expect the liquidity to increase? As such I think the best approach is to start making a change and organically grow from there.

1 Like

its not inflatoin but demand plays role in Grin price ,you paint the same picture again and again.
Bitcoin inflation s similar to Grin inflation ,demand matters.
if its up to you Grin shouldnt be at exchanges in your view.

@Cobragrin Lets keep things polite (not you always…), it is ok @vegycslol is sharing his concerns, just as you share your concerns with being to resistant to making change and not taking into account demand.
Both concerns are very valid and should be taken into account.

1 Like

Demand is heavily correlated to current inflation rate. It’s possible that we somehow get some uber hype but that’s imo unlikely in the short term

No it’s not, grin has linear inflation, btc has halvings so it reaches low inflation rate way faster

Grin has same inflation rate first 4 years as Bitcoin.

So u know better than F. Hayek suddenly. :joy:
Your crystal ball knows exactly when Bitcoin uber hype fades or demand dies?

Everyone is simplifying things by reasoning from their own situation. Contracting to be paid for Grin isn’t necessarily the same as fiat or Bitcoin. It depends on the country, laws etc. Forcing these things on people is basically reducing the pool of potential candidates that might believe in Grin, but don’t want to take legal or other risks. This doesn’t mean they don’t believe in the project, far from it.

Currently Grin has big liquidity issues. If you want to sell a lot of Grin, you might need to do it via multiple orders to avoid losing money, maybe even days apart because the order book is so shallow. This could bring a different tax to your crypto holdings because of random rules like if orders_in_last_year > N or order_place_days > M you become considered a trader. And based on this you could get taxed 25% or 0%. I’m not making this up, these rules exist in some countries and people want to minimize the two variables. In some cases it could probably bring legal issues to the table as well. Being paid in Bitcoin or Grin can be a completely different experience.

I’d like to add that we can’t solve the problems of liquidity by forcing others to transact in Grin. It should come from the community without a force applied on the community members. It should be natural and by those that want and know why they want to transact.