What does Grin have that nobody else has? The simplicity?
No other coin has that AFAIK. It’s supremely simple, while also providing an anti-fragile emission strategy, good enough privacy for everyday use, and other things. Every other feature is downstream from simplicity in terms of the market fit?
Simplicity is the one thing that cannot be attained after the fact. Reminds me of this
The Tao gives birth to One. One gives birth to Two. Two gives birth to Three. Three gives birth to all things
Besides TO, there are no exchanges actively supporting Grin. No major projects adopt it as a crypto. The trading volume is practically nonexistent. The roadmap offers little promise of anything groundbreaking in the near future. And the policy from those running the project seems to be: “Do the bare minimum and hope something changes.” A laissez-faire management at it’s worst. So ask yourself this. Why would anyone go through the hassle of buying and holding Grin? Why take the risk, when there’s no adoption, no liquidity, and no compelling reason beyond nostalgia or ideology? It’s a question many have asked before. Most of them aren’t around anymore. And those who are still here turn a blind eye to the trajectory this project is on silencing the last few voices who dare to hold a different opinion.
Grin has multiple advantages going for it, but indeed, if you would have to pick some, it would be its “fair, mininal and scalable design”.
When you mention grin also had other great properties, like privacy preserving, fungible I think many people just cannot “compute” how all of those properties can simultaneously exist.
Having it all sounds impossible, magical - and it is .
For so long the assumption has been that privacy and scalability cannot be achieved simultaneously, yet, that is exactly what mimblewimble has done. @Rust hate it or love it, but I doubt another breakthrough like this will be happen any time soon.
The fact that there is no one in charge is another point for Grin, in the long run.
Adoption is a bit antithetical to “buying and holding”, but I get what you mean.
As of now, Grin has an ideology (simplicity + 1 coin per second + privacy), and the fact that it’s not controlled by anyone. Fertile soil. Just need a good UX for it.
Grin’s simplicity is a differentiator. Tromp has a great post about it on bitcointalk [1]. Another differentiator is the supply function. Bitcoin is an experiment with a hardcap supply that is locked in time in a somewhat asymmetrical way, likely done so to incentivize early adoption. Grin takes a much slower approach. It started counting seconds on 2019-01-15 16:01:26 UTC with what could be described as a best effort automated second counting regulation - a highly responsive DAA. In simple terms, it tries to clone UTC seconds into a digital world (Grin network) where they can be exchanged and used as a currency. I think this is the big experiment behind Grin. Technology will continue to improve and there’s not much that can be done about it. But if you started counting first and one “tick” takes equally long for all clocks then the only way to outrun the clock that started first is if the clock stops ticking. My understanding is that as long as Grin’s DAA remains the best mapping function and Grin doesn’t fail as a network, it will be the clock/time as a currency with the biggest supply of “linearized time”. The question no one can answer is whether humanity will need linearized time as a currency and whether Grin can help with this, hence why this project is an experiment.
.