I am ehsan bahrami and I am here to talk about GRIN from economical point of view.
I see a very large potential in GRIN as the best option for mining revenue in the future because its constant block reward and its secure nature as a private currency. as of now grin is the only secure platform with cutting edge technology capable of create 6 Billion per year for its miners if GRIN market cap only reach 15 Billions. GRIN as a 15 billions market cap coin in future will have the network of miners as large and secure as bitcoin with 500 Billions market cap.
thank you for reading.
Indeed Grin’s linear block reward of 1 Grin/s is good for miners, good for security in the decades to come, and good for late adopters since they can earn as much Grin as miners did who mined Grin in the early days. Grin is deffinetely worth a bigger market cap and will have a relatively strong security compared to coins that halve their security/mining reward every 4 years like Bitcoin.
However, Bitcoins being the king of crypto and being an ultimate store of value will mean that good security will be there, althought this security will be increasingly paid for by users through transaction costs. Therefore as a day to day payment currency, Grin is much more attractive in my opinion.
This is a common misconception - security is always paid for by users, whether through dilution or fees. And Bitcoin having a high valuation does not guarantee good security, users don’t pay more if they want more security; they pay the minimum amount necessary to be pulled out the mempool.
Bitcoin could very well be worth tens of trillions, but if there is a period of low demand for block space, the security spend may be 0.0…01% of the value being transferred. Users won’t be able to do anything about it, except to search for finality in alternative solutions (other chains, centralized tools).
Exactly, for brevity I thought I would skip over these details. Although through block rewards users always pay for transactions, the higher the transactino fees, the more making transactions is disincentivised. And indeed in low demand periods, the security might become compromised. For certain 2nd layer technologies will solve many of the scaling and cost issues for Bitcoin payments. But currently, doing payments in Bitcoin is unattractive since you know your Bitcoin will 1) increase in value and 2) the costs of transactions are relatively high. Both properties are not ideal for day-to-day payments but do not interfere with Bitcoin as store of value.
In a sense you can see all non-Bitcoin crypto projects as a second layer to Bitcoin. Although not pegged to Bitcoin, in day-to-day life many crypto projects facilitate better and more scalable payments alternatives and are somewhat loosely correlated in value to Bitcoins.
With Grin I do however see it a bit different from most “Altcoins”. I see Grin as a retake on Bitcoin to achieve some of the initial goals that were set out for Bitcoin but for which Bitcoin turned out to be less suitable. In terms of properties, Grin is superior to Bitcoin for day-to-day transactions. This is of course independent of monetary value of Grin. Grin might be superior as digital cash, but Grin is less suitable as store of value than Bitcoin is right now. Once Grin matures and the stock to flow increases, this changes and Grin might also become more attractive as store of value like Bitcoin is now.