You come up with baseless claims that attack the foundation of the project which will certainly draw attention. You’re now presenting as an attention seeker as most of your contributions here are incorrect.
If you look at the commit history of the project, you will see that there were no magical devs that appeared in July 2018 that carried Grin to launch. People would be more tolerant of your opinions if you just did a little research first.
Ignotus was only magical imo, he was even removed from MimbleWimble organisation later (his account could be hijacked).
I’d hardly call my claims baseless since grin is literally mentioned in the Epstein files.
Think for a second bro, my opinions are the same as many will have when they find out grin is mentioned to Epstein. By addressing these concerns publicly here, I’m giving the opportunity to the community to address and debunk the similar thoughts many will be having when they hear the news.
I feel the cc members here did a fairly good job at defending their case, although it should be noted that the people defending it here are apart of the very organization that would be the Layer One Enployees, if such a thing were true.
Funny though that they did have advanced chip technology… so they could have actually. Could still be… From the article you linked about Layer One: "We expect our chips to be competitive for at least eight years now…you want to have your own chips in hand”
Maybe Grin’s net hash will stay high indefinitely, since its block reward isn’t on a death spiral to zero emission nor even a tail emission. But I don’t consider its net hash too high, since iPollo’s ASICs have always been profitable, often among the most profitable of ASICs (crazy for a commonplace/abundant 6 year old 1st gen ASIC). And even more astounding is how Grin remains the most profitable to mine for GPUs, despite a long-term saturation of ASICs (still in production, available direct from the manufacturer). Ethereum was only able to pull that off at the very end of its PoW life (to dominate PoW profitability for both GPUs & ASICs).
The information about who donated to Grin as a project are actually public:
Layer One is not among the companies. Surely if they wanted to earn from Grin, they would have asked for their name to be included.
The anonymous bitcoin donations originate from old bitcoiner UTXO’s. Old UTXO’s like these are rare and not something a relatively new company like Layer 1 would usually have access to. In addition, based on the message that came with the anonymous donations, it is clear they come from individual(s) who experienced the Bitcoin early days and recognized that Grin can become what Bitcoin has failed to become. A sentiment I remember feeling myself when I stumbled upon Grin and started to realize its true potential - which I can best describe as a “goosebumps moment”.
Seems like to me they (Layer1) may have had something to do with our security audit back in joltz day and possibly funding the grin g1 chip research and development , and manufacturing with MicroComputers. Possibly paying 3 or more grin devs. Possibly even helped launch the protocol. The council was hostile to questions about layer1’s involvement back then as well.
It could be that they were involved in the security audit although I have not seen any proof. They did wanted to hire some talented cryptographers from Stanford and University of Chicago. I can think of some suitable candidates.
In any case, that is not the same as paying for core developers. Nor is there any actual proof of Epstein being involved in any way in Grin. I mean if you search the Epstein files for “Jesus Chris”, there are 58 hits, and 24 hits for Satoshi and 224 mentions of “Hitler” (might say something about Epstein’s friends) yet I do not think they were involved in Epstein’s cabal in any way 
In the end it actually all does not matter. Even if the devil himself would have invented Grin, like Bitcoin, Grin will and should be judged based on its merits, not based on whoever have contributed to it.
I agree that grin is cool even with possible pedo corpo-rot funding and influence, but I could certainly see why Igno left if that was the case. (He left around this same time)
I guess a reason the same why Satoshi left, bees were too annoying, too much attention from CIA/WEF/MI6, its impossible to stay anon at internet nowadays 
SEC mentioned GRIN not so long time ago:
GRIN is for everyone, we can not restrict criminals to use it.
Idea is to make it usable for anybody, network stability is a goal now.
This is interesting. The idea is that it was private equity firms mining and dumping that caused Grin’s price to decline after launch which didn’t happen to Bitcoin as so few know about it. I suppose that if those firms are now gone, this would be Grin’s true launch.
Red Flag: The Ethereum ICO was not “fair” or successful as one of the panelists claims (without disagreement from his peers). The distribution was poor, and whales connected to insiders and devs were major buyers. Moreover, at that time, Ethereum was planning on having a huge (practically limitless) supply, which discouraged many from investing. A couple years after the Ethereum launch the supply was slashed to what it is today, grossly enriching early investors.
