Grin Marketing - 7 things to love about Grin

@Paouky Thx for your input and well founded opinion. Nice to see the link to the original discussions of the “mission statement”, from the early days. I am still thinking how to phrase -1) since it is just a description that roughly captures the objective of what Grin is about for many. I know it is not exactly accurate to call it a mission statement since Grin is not created by a company and has different meanings to different people. However, from a marketing point of view it would be good to settle for one that we can all live with. I just need to find a more appropriate phrasing than “mission statement”.

-2) Regarding this point, to me the major benefit is not only that you cannot send to old addresses from a user that might not be in used any more, but that you cannot send it to an address which is the result of a typo. If you would for example delete or replace on character of the TOR address you are sending a transaction to, the reaction would bounce right. In Bitcoin I find the major drawback that such a typo can result in a valid address, just not own by any private key that is in use, resulting in funds being destroyed forever. I will change it to “address not actively in use” since this captures both use cases.

-5) True about the security argument, it is rather important so I should include that somewhere since it strengthens Grin’s usability for the long term. As I understand it, once the block rewards get insufficient to pay miners, transaction prices go up like they do now with Bitcoin to partly compensate for this loss of income. So, the argument that transfer prices are low, and stay low will still hold, right? I will make a comparison table for the transaction cost of an average transaction with for example, Bitcoin, Litecoin, Monnero, Grin, Zcoin, Zen etc. I am confident Grin will be the cheapest by far especially when compared to other privacy coins.

-7) Cool, I did not even consider what the decentralised governance and funding model for Grin implied in terms of security. I will try to incorporate that argument. I should mention Grin in tandem with all other purely community funded crypto currencies since these are in general well renowned coins. Does anyone have a list, I thought there were about 5 or so.

I will improve the phrasing of the arguments to be more accurate while keeping them easy to understand for non-technical users. I on purpose wrote it like a marketeer and not from a technical perspective, however, making false or weak claims would of course result in negative marketing so I do have to make it as accurate as possible. I will repost it once I had time to incorporate all feedback.

This discussion made me realize that the only actual overview of grin is on github. And even that is way too long for somebody who just wants to familiarize themselves briefly with the project. That’s not good. has to have a short and solid overview.
Also as a side note, the descriptions in CMC and messari need revisiting too.

I’ll give it all a go in the next few days.


If anybody with native English wishes to lend a hand that would be very helpful (but not absolutely necessary). Just hit me up on keybase.


For what it’s worth, I though english was your native language. I agree with this, educational content available right now is for those that wish to learn and take the time. Not everyone needs to understand how Mimblewimble works under the hood, it’s enough to know what properties it gives compared to other solutions. I think an unofficial website with a simple visual representation of cut-through, blinded amounts and aggregation would immediately show why such design could be interesting.

I remember watching Poelstra’s talk and this part blew my mind. Back then, I didn’t know what a Pedersen commitment was nor did I know anything about elliptic curves, but it worked because you don’t need to understand its inner working to appreciate the benefits it brings.

I’m all for sharing/brain storming ideas around educational content.


Can put in official:)

Speaking of #6, I was trying to explain grin emission to a former naysayer. The graphic won him over, look at his reply! “A solution as simple as it is ingenious”


A picture is worth a thousand words, especially when explaining something such as infinite supply. Something like this would also be good in the educational part of Grin for non-technicians. Intuitively it removes the feeling of infinite supply as a treat.

1 Like

What I had in mind was to represent the concepts in pictures similar to

so to avoid showing too many concepts to the user or just going too deep into them.


I think the trouble with marketing grin is that it comes across as not being super serious and almost cunning. I’m still learning about Grin tbh, and what brought me towards is it is the passion of the dev team, also Charlie Lee’s potential/pending adoption of the mimblewimble in LTC. I think a lot of use case is adoption and actual use by those not interested in the investment side so much as actually roadtesting it and getting comfortable with alternative methods of transaction.

  1. Transfer fees.
    I think a good working POW cryptocurrency should have the majority of the Miner rewards from the fees, not from the new coins. I would like to see if in a few years grin has an average transaction fee of 0.1 to 0.5 grin. So about 50% to 90% of the rewards are fees. And the price per coin doesn’t need to exceed past prices. Lower fees with 2nd layer scaling would be nice, if needed.

I am suprised by that argument :sweat_smile:.
In general the consensus is purely paying the security of blockchain from fees creates some problems.

  • The number of transactions per block varies, as well as the total amount send. Paying the sucurity by fees means that some blocks have much higher security (asuming more fees = more mining power put into it) than others.
  • For miners it would mean the block reward would fluctuate a lot, although this can be solved by buffering/pooling the transaction fees over multiple blocks.
  • For users this would mean normal transactions become too expensive to make day to day transactions, although as you mention, second layer transactions would solve this

The only reason Grin has a somewhat high transaction fee (e.g. compared to Beam) is to protect users and the mempool from spam attacks with many small transactions.

1 Like

I can explain my surprising argument further. Paying the security of blockchain from new coins that can last forever, creates some also problems.

  • I think for POW it would be always a security problem, if “market cap” is (much) higher than the cost of rebuilding all the work.

  • miner rewards from fees don’t create incentive to rebuild old blocks, from the genisis. But rising coin prises or cheaper graphs/hashes do.

:thinking: I think you are missing a step in your reasoning.
I think you forgot to adjust the cost of a reorg (rebuilding from the genesis block) with increasing difficulty which is linear with increases in the price of Grin.
The market cap of Grin is proportional to:

block_height * 60_Grin.

So, actually, the costs of rebuilding from the genesis block are linearly to the amount of blocks/time * the price of grin since the difficulty increases with increasing prices:

block_height * 60 * the current_price_grin * the_difficulty

Having a fixed/steady mining reward that pays for blocks security makes it expensive to perform a 51% attack attempting a reorg. Basically with a constant mining reward you make sure that security is always there, even if a block would be empty and without transactions.
Higher prices combined with a fixed mining fee also improve security. If the prices go up, the hash/graph rate naturally increases as well since it is more lucratif to mine.

Higher prices combined with a fixed mining fee also improve security in an absolute way. But the incentive to break the security is “improved” even more by the higher prices. I think the security (pow) must be seen relative to the intensive breaking it.

@Doogevol You have a fair point, that if the price of a coin increases, the insentive to break past security (which is lower since the difficulty of past block was proportional to the past prices) increases.
In practicse it is way to expensive to do a reorg that goes back that many blocks, but if an asset would litteraly explode in value, this would create a security risk. Which makes me wonder why no-one has ever tried to do this for Bitcoin? Probably some other fail safes are in place. I know there are failsafes for grin, e.g. manually cutting of part of the network as well as grindefender, a fund to counter any sudden icrease in hashing power. Such an attack would also lead to a huge drop in the value of such a coin which would automatically make such an attack unatractif. This problem is however the same when paying security from fees or through a fixed miing reward. If you would use high transaction fees from users to pay for security, past blocks also would have low difficulty and as such would over the long term be equally lucratif to redo if there would be a sudden increase in price and would end up being non-lucratif since the price would crash.

Anyhow, the biggest isue with high fees is that it de-insentivises user to make transactions. A coin that no-one wants to use only has speculatif power. Therefore transaction should be cheap, even if the cost is a higher inflation. Actually that is one of the few things that fiat transactions got right, inflation and low transaction fees are good for adoption and day to day use.

On bitcoin this unbalance (marketcap/securitywork) is really extreme evolved, because the extreme progress in mining efficiency, extreme prise increase and continuous reward halvings. Every single factor is less extreme for grin. But I’m wondering if that is enough. And even I’m not sure if bitcoin will see complete reorgs.

If there are contracts with bitcoin, it depends on the exact definition what bitcoin actually is. But if the definition is: Bitcoin is, what the first satoshi client says. Bitcoin is overpriced because someone could sell and deliver 18.000.000 BTC for 6000 USD each. (Again and again)

Newer Clients have checkpoints.

The most important way that coins protect against 51% attacks is through incentives. E.g. especially when mining using ASIC’s that are only used by a few coins, making an attack would mean you have to make a huge investment to get your hands on 51% of these ASICS. If you would do an attack, the price would plummet and your ASIC’s would become worthless. Also it is very difficult to get 51% of the hashing power in ASICs without someone noticing. Although Grin has ASIC’s now, the majority of the hash/graph power comes from GPU miners.
So, a first step to improve security is to have even more ASIC’s like the G1 Mini and G1 miner from iPollo to secure Grin. Anyhow, I am not concerned by Grin’s security, doing a complete reorg is basically impossible and simply would lead to loss of value of the project. The only reason someone would want to do something like that is to try to destroy a coin, because it would not be profitable at all.

A few thoughts on marketing…

Current logo looks a bit like an acid house tab from the early 90s. Which I guess gives it a bit of an underground feel. Which is good. Looks quite friendly too.

However you sell things by creating a need for them. The selling point is privacy and fungibility. Though low transport costs is also a biggie. Also many people see bitcoin as a pyramid scam due to the ease of mining initially.

So the way I explained Grin to a non techy friend was that bitcoin was like the ealry internet, or http. Everyone could see what you were doing and you didn’t necessarily trust it for small transactions. It is slow, non fungible as people can and do refuse to accept coins that were used on the silk road for instance.

Grin is https. Or to anyone not tehnical enough to understand that, it uses magic. It’s fast, it’s fungible and it’s cheap. There’s also no time barrier to entry as 1 is created every second and always will be.

The whole Harry potter thing though is a potential source of publicity. Whilst I think the author is a slap arsed talentless harridan, that might even be an advantage. If we could get her railing against the idea that her made up name is being used… She has a wide reach. It isn’t as though someone can sue a cryptocurrency for copyright infringement…

Also it might be worth talking up the banned aspect… If an exchange delists it, it has been banned. People want things they aren’t allowed to have. People also want things which are hard to get. Bitcoin is hard to get due to the hashing power required, but it’s dead easy on every single exchange. Grin, not so much.

Personally I think the biggest publicity draw for cryptocurrencies generally is actual coins. Images floating around t-interweb of actual physically minted bitcoin, eth, doge or a handful of others solidifies in the average plebs mind that it is a ‘thing’. Course though they’re all pristine gold, silver and have fancy greek symbols on them… Which isn’t what people think of when they think everyday currency. They look lik the collector’s coins which sad old bastards hoard on their mantlepieces.

To be truly adopted a crypto coin has to be everyday currency. Likely outside of DeFi this will start with gaming. Though do you really want to missus to be able to check how much you really spent on naked ladies, beer or your hobby?

So I’d suggest tapping up the sad harry potter fan nerds who might buy out of mongness, maybe crowdfunding the minting of some actual cheap looking copper Grins which are somewhat potter themed on one side, annoying the scottish illiterate feminist harridan and painting Grin as the future that they are trying to ban.

Regarding physical coins, the first physical coins are being mined (3D printed) and went for sale 3 days ago:

I think there many in the community who dig Harry Potter, including myself, so am not sure about the idea of getting Rowling against Grin. Although this could most certainly lead to most publicity and as such higher price, I think most community members actually do not care enough about the price to include negative publicity.

But you are right that some aspects such as being banned or being ‘dead’ are actually great for memes and for publicity. Hence we celebrate them, here is an example of celebrating the negative ranting of a community member which is actually rather amuzing :stuck_out_tongue:


What proportion of potterists currently know of the existence of Grin do you think?

To them, it would be a bit like a meme coin.

For instance I’ve been researching different projects for quite some time now. Pretty much constantly for the last month… Missus has taken no notice. Soon as I mentioned RavenCoin though she became a crypto fanatic who simply had to have it. Was pleasantly surprised to find it was a good project on the whole, though their wallet is crap ( she couldn’t possibly have a wallet which didn’t have a Raven on it, but which works, you see).

I think hardly anyone… So yes, you definitely have a point that there is a huge potential market there of people who might like Grin. Not only for the Harry Potter meme, but I think in spirit there is some similarity to the way potterists think and Grin enthusiast thinks. So yes, this is an interesting new angle you bring to the marketing, definitely worth exploring since it did wonders for Ravencoin. Since many potter fans are intellectual, I think that quite a few might stay with Grin once they transcend beyond the Harry Potter ,eme association to become true grinners.

=> Maybe we should hand out Grin airdrops at the next Harry Potter Movie premier (not sure if there will be any more), just to expose some of these people to Grin and maybe even get Grin on the news. I for one am willing to donate to such noble cause :wink: :grinning_face_with_smiling_eyes:.

1 Like