bitcoin the F IR ST
grin the FaIReST
and simplest
privacy that scales
No idea why last 2 lines get italicized…
4 Likes
Regarding “fair”, won’t Grin become just as “fair” as bitcoin when the soft supply cap is reached?
No, Grin would be fairer. Grin reaches an equilibrium when the soft total supply is reached with inflow of new grin being same as the loss rate. In any case, anyone could still mine Grin and get access to newly minted Grin.
Bitcoin on the contrary reaches a steady state with a net loss rate since newly minted Bitcoin becomes negligible. Hopefully miners will still be able to get Bitcoin from fees while the total amount of not lost Bitcoin will steadily diminish, increasing scarcity.
Lets assume a yearly loss rate of 1-2% for both Bitcoin and Grin. Grin would reach a stable amount of non lost Grin while the total amount of accessible Bitcoins keeps diminishing with 1-2% a year making Bitcoin increasingly scarce.
I also doubt Bitcoin fees will reach 1-2% of the total supply, meaning it is hard to get access to Bitcoin for new adopters and meaning security will likely become weaker than that of Grin. Both de-insentivice economic activity but are maybe not as big deal for Bitcoin being used as a store of value if you keep transactions small.
At that time, all Grin has been emitted uniformly over its 100 year history, while Bitcoin has had the vast majority emitted in its first decade, creating large crypto wealth inequalities, and only a tiny fraction in the last 50 years. Nothing can undo that unfairness.
3 Likes
The same goes for Monero. I like that they added tail emission but early adopters have been rewarded even more unfairly than in Bitcoin.
When you think about it is quite a bad sign that 99% of all crypto out there are designed to be extremely unfair and enrich early adopters. It shows what those 99% are all about, it certainly is not about financial freedom, fairness and equality or any fancy altruistic ideals.
2 Likes
Indeed; in their first year, Bitcoin saw 13% of its supply emitted, while for Monero it was a whopping 40% [1].
2 Likes
Emitted uniformly != Distributed uniformly.
If we only have 2 people mining and they manage to hold and keep their grin during all that time then what?
Uniformly is still the fairest possible emission. No emission can stop the fiat-wealthy from buying more coins, but at least it can minimize creating crypto more wealth inequality…
This is how they incentivize work and investment though. Why be an early adopter? Why take the risk? Well the answer is the potential upside. So you’re more likely to want to put in hours of development to improve it and build upon it.
I understand why early adopters are insentivised, but a grass-root project with fair distribution is far more ideal of-course.
Flip the question around, why would I as a late investor want to buy Monero or any other project that is that lob-sided in its supply distribution? For Monero it is clear that I have missed the boat and only those who mined and bought in the early years will get rewarded. If I want to invest in a project that does not give me financial returns, I prefer to go to for a as fair as it gets project like Grin.
Another reason why I do not like early investors to be unfairly rewarded is because it can lead to cult like endorsement and shilling of projects and adding features for the sake of shilling, simply because those early investors wanting to enrich themselves.
For the above reason I do not own any Monero even though I do like some of its attributes.
Also, one might wonder if early investors really need to own 40% (lets say only the first year counts as initial investors). Those early investors hold 0.4*$2,775,693,058 =1,110,277,223 USD worth of Monero, assuming they have not cashed out yet. I think those developers do not need to own 1 billion USD in funds to incentivize development. If a build in insensitive is chosen, I think a developers fee like that of Beam is preferable since it incentivizes long term commitment and development, and a smaller percentage of the total supply is owned by developers. Having said that, I do think 25% dev tax is high, and it would be better if they would have some BTC funds to get through their first two crypto winters.
When comes it comes to Grin, I do not see any way it could be made any fairer. Grin is the fairest of them all, I should make meme out of it 
. I have chosen. Grin as the one project for which I am ok that it makes me poorer financially because it is “enriching” to the world.
2 Likes
If we take the parameters of fairness and usefulness as a measure, then ordinary sand will be just as fair and even more useful than GRIN now.
And yes, there is no justice in this world, there has not been and will not be. Whoever believes that it exists is an idealist.
Let’s take bitcoin. For example, in 2012, he seemed honest and fair to everyone, but now it has become clear that a large percentage is owned by a narrow group of people who manipulate the price.
Where is the guarantee that in 2050 the same group of large investors will not buy up most of GRIN and will not lead by the nose people who have decided that GRIN is fair.
Sorry, but after 5 years of watching the project, I see how those who want to invest and those who believed in the need for GRIN for fair transactions are leaving. I don’t see either of them.
I agree! There is some bitterness involved.
But there is going to come a time with Grin where you have the same issue. If I buy 10 million Grin right around the time of the soft-supply cap, I will see similar gains to early Monero or early Bitcoin.
The only difference is that early contributors will not be rewarded as nicely.
This hasn’t happened with Bitcoin. The new features there have just improved the security and stability of the network.
Yeah, you may be right. I still don’t like this marketing phrase though. It sounds pathetic and like a half truth.
- Every adult knows that life isn’t fair
- Early investors in Grin will still be rewarded more
“Early users do not profit exponentially due to a decreasing supply, but purely through increasing demand for the coin.” (grin docs)
3 Likes
You are right, not having a linear supply does not mean a project automatically becomes a enrichment scheme, many Bitcoiners/devs still work on true ideals of decentralization and financial freedom.
Right about that, life is not fair and nothing in life is 100% fair, not even Grin. And yaa, maybe I am a bit bitter I did not buy Monero in the beginning. Still, I want to make a meme out “Grin being the fairest” when I have the time, just for the lols 
All crypto is free and as such can be manipulated, only Grin de-incentivizes it since there keeps on getting more of it. For anyone who wants to manipulate, why would they go for Grin as one of the few hord resistant coins out there?
Are they? I think mostly people who thought they could make a quick buck are the ones who lost interest. I do think the initial hype around mimblewimble has been totally gone, and to be honest, that might be for the better. After hypes, when things are quit, the real work can be done.
1 Like