Let's fork GRIN!

It will soon be 3 years since GRIN was born, for cryptocurrencies that is a long time to draw certain conclusions about what has been done well and what has probably gone wrong and needs to be fixed before it’s too late.

A lot of people have been inspired by the idea of a new honest and decentralized cryptocurrency. Very compact and scalable blockchain with great privacy features, no premine, no dev fee, no ico, etc. It would seem that what could stop the project from growing.

But something went wrong. If everything is so cool, why are there almost no developers left in the project? There aren’t the best folks left who believed and supported the idea from the beginning and put their soul into the project. They didn’t join in on all the scams that flooded the crypto space, and were always faithful to the idea of a free society with a free economy and money. GRIN was like a breath of fresh air to them. They undoubtedly deserved better treatment and respect. Instead, they were thrown into a bottomless abyss along with the price of GRIN which continues to fall by the day. Many of them have lost their life savings and, most importantly, their time.

In my view, saying that the GRIN is a cash and that it should not be a store of value is pretty stupid. Because cash does not mean that the value must always fall. To me cash is money which is convenient to use in everyday life. GRIN which is constantly losing its value is no better than usd, why bother with it at all, let’s use paper dollars, it has much more privacy than in any cryptocurrency. Any good money should at least retain its value, otherwise it doesn’t make any sense.

GRIN has a constant linear emission with decreasing inflation. The reason is to ensure that the distribution of coins is as decentralized as possible. Is this really the case? It’s no secret that GRIN is mostly traded on just two exchanges, GATE and TO, which makes the circulation of the coin very transparent. So, about 3 months ago one buyer appeared, who started to buy GRIN for about 1000 satoshi, gradually lowering the price level, currently he is buying at 600 satoshi. He brings 2 bitcoins and puts a limit buy order every time a previous order is filled. He also sees no problem with just taking all the liquidity by market price up to 850-1000 satoshi from time to time. By my calculations, he has accumulated at least 6.1 million coins and keeps buying. That’s, for a second, 7% of all supply. Even Satoshi with his 1 million (5.5%) coins and zec with its devs fees look more modest. What kind of decentralization can we talk about? Someone is purposefully monopolizing the coin, and we don’t know the real resources and intentions of this buyer, all capitalization of GRIN at the moment is only 524 BTC. Someone can afford to buy up all of GRIN without a problem. If there is a resource to buy that many coins then there is probably a resource to increase the price and continue manipulations in the future. Pump and Dump scheme is the future of GRIN. It doesn’t make sense for such a player to hold GRIN because of high inflation, but it does make sense to make sharp dumps when interest in the coin will be high. In the end, we never get what we expected initially. We are losing desired decentralization.

Bitcoin turned out to be a strong project because Satoshi was strong not only technically, but also in game theory. A system becomes stable if it reaches a Nash equilibrium Nash equilibrium - Wikipedia. Simply, a Nash equilibrium is the result of a scenario in which everyone wins because everyone achieves the desired outcome.

Bitcoin is a system in which miners and investors get the desired outcome. Investors know that bitcoins are finite, so they are valuable and it makes sense to keep them, miners are interested in them as long as the mining continues and the price covers all costs and makes some profit. That way there is a balance, and the system continues to work quite well. Bitcoin will have problems when the mining stops.

GRIN provides interest for miners, but not enough value for buyers. Yes the emission is time-limited, privacy and scalability are all cool, but the fact that 84,000 new coins is born every day, there is no reason to hold them because tomorrow will be mined another 84000 coins, the plan that inflation will be low in 50 years is certainly beautiful, but let’s face it. There will be thousands of new projects created during that time to compete with GRIN and the chance of winning is negligible, but the chance of dying is increasing every day.

So before it’s too late, I propose to fork GRIN, keeping all the original principles, but changing the monetary policy to protect investors’ interests, add some value to Grin to be able reach Nash equilibrium. GRIN has already begun to lose its decentralization and accumulates in single hands. Yet I believe it’s not too late.

I propose to change emission from 60 coins per minute to 1(ONE) per minute.

Perhaps this transition can be done gradually to keep miners interested. Or just give a few months for the market to evaluate this change.

The second option would be to create another coin that would keep the existing distribution of GRIN, thereby fairly rewarding those who initially believed in the project. This also could be the experimental project for testing new features like coin join or atomic swap first. And who knows, maybe the second project will succeed.

We would get inflation about 2% with a good decentralized distribution of coins which exists at the moment. If this is not done, the coins will concentrate in a single hand, and it would be impossible to resist this.

Let’s add some value for GRIN.

P.S. If someone has other solutions on how to fix GRIN let’s discuss.

2 Likes

Nice idea, I hope community council will hear your voice too.

That’s brave and unexpectedly, but I like the idea

My take is that we worked against each other rather than supporting those that hold the knowledge and we really want to have around. Instead of support, we built a narrative how bad they are and that they’re ruining the project. This turned into endless arguments that were constant unproductive energy leeching. It was rather predictable this would happen as it happens in every other community as well - Grin is no different when it comes to mental cost. I think it’s much better now, but I’m not sure if the same thing would repeat or not if new people came or if theoretically, they returned.

That’s not where the difference between fiat and cryptocurrencies lies. Cryptocurrencies introduce a cryptographically safe asset whose printing is predictable and can’t be changed. Grin is perhaps the most predictable one because its emission model is the least arbitrary. The printing of USD is not predictable as 2019 has shown us.

That’s not true. Money is far more traceable than ZCash z2z transactions - assuming they’re used. While cash is less traceable than Grin, I think Grin has better properties. It doesn’t require me to meet in real world to transfer the value to the receiver. Confidential transactions also have this nice property that at no point in time, does the receiver know the amount of the sender. That’s not true for cash because when you pay in the store, the store creates your “change output” by returning you the remainder they owe you.

The model Grin went for was a more fair launch than the alternatives I’ve seen and this includes the emission model. Nothing prevents a single person buying every single coin in any model - it’s an open market.

You could say the same for Bitcoin in early days - probably even for less money.

I’d personally welcome new projects to the space that introduce something new and better than Grin. Just like a lot of Bitcoiners welcomed Grin.

Breaking the monetary policy is perhaps the worst thing we can do to this project. We’ve gone through the most painful starting years which were expected. The inflation is not going to be as low as in other projects for many years, but the longer we wait, the less this move makes sense.

Suggesting a monetary policy change because we suspect someone is buying coins is a very reactive hard fork and these don’t sound like a good idea to me. It also makes the person you argued is buying millions of Grin hold a higher % of supply in 5 years than with today’s monetary policy where the inflation would lower the % of their holdings. I also suspect this likely achieves the opposite effect of what you expect it to - the person accumulating would become an even more aggressive buyer if we changed to 1 coin per minute because they already think Grin is a good deal today. It would be an even better deal with your proposed change.

I think this is not the way to go about solving things. The way we dig ourselves out is not by having reactive/panic hard forks, but by becoming a more active community. Start contributing blog posts, images, paintings, talk to your friends about it, contribute by having more tech discussions, suggest/pick-up a bounty if you can and help the community understand and spread the word.

A reminder about the monetary policy from yours truly Emission rate of Grin - #88 by igno.peverell

11 Likes

No, that’s 7% of current supply. Which, as you note, is being diluted fast thanks to grin’s high inflation (or slow emission as I would call it).
That makes it only 0.19% of the supply in 100 years.
Now it doesn’t look like Satoshi does it?

By drastically reducing inflation, you’re making your hypothetical whale own an orders of magnitude larger fraction of the supply in 100 years, and much more like Satoshi.

You’re arguing against yourself.

Btw, that was what Doge’s emission was like. A huge block reward in the first year, and then a 20x smaller block reward for all later years, turning many early adopters into whales.

Get Elon to tweet about Grin:-)

13 Likes

Developers and contributors are real world people with real world problems, they have to pay bills, they probably also have families like everyone else, friends, hobbies, ambitions, etc. When a developer or contributor leaves a project it does not mean anything but that developer found something else to invest their time in, because they are, at the end of the day, human beings. This has very little to do with the monetary policy, and a lot to do with human beings trying to figure it out what is best for them.

Cool, go ahead, here’s the repository, it is all open source: mimblewimble · GitHub it won’t be the first nor the last Grin’s fork anyways.

That mindset is extremely dangerous for a project like Grin. What is in best interest of investors? Simple: profit. There are hundreds of projects where you can get your profit, pick one, like Shiba Inu Coin for example, the internet is full of posts of people making a ton amount of money, then when you make your profit move it to another one, and then to another one, and that’s all. (DISCLAIMER: I’m not a financial advisor).

I’m not saying: f*ck the investors. Are you driven by profit? are you a trader? good for you, that is fine, there is nothing bad about that. I wish I could learn more about trading so I can make profit with the next meme coin :money_mouth_face:

In summary:

  • Improve the user experience by embracing Grin features.
  • Build an Ecosystem. Let people build stuff on top of Grin, like POS, Payment Gateways, new forms of sending and receiving, etc.
  • Build a strong community.
  • Improve miners experiences.

But also, most important, ask Elon to tweet about Grin.

8 Likes

Let’s fork GRIN

No.

We are undergoing a usual change in a project, where the old team (developers, etc) are not agreeing anymore or just dont want to proceed anymore after year(s) of building a secure and yellow coin.

Don’t complain, get involved!

We hearing a lot of complaints here on the forum, but why is no one engaging with GRIN and starts to find a solution to a problem not complaining about it.

Be part of the solution!

We have now a fully working GRIN community council (CC), who can be reached and new ideas can be discussed. Also the GRIN original council (OC) is still there and also can engage in new proposals.

Grin-CC: grincc · GitHub
GRIN-CC meeting agendas: Issues · grincc/agenda · GitHub

– MCM-Mike

7 Likes

No one said that Grin would get huge value in a short time. Rather, it was said that this is money designed for many years and not get-rich-quick money. (and it was not said that 3 years is a long time)
First of all, in order to make changes, the project must have moved away from its main ideas. However, the main ideas are still the same.
The only problem may be your perspective on the project. Then you can switch to another project with the features you mentioned.

4 Likes

What’s the reason for new people to come on the project, there is no single reason left to do it, let’s be honest.

Regular customers don’t care why currency is losing value, the fact is it’s losing value and a reason doesn’t make one of them better or worse. They both are bad because they don’t hold value. Good money should allow customers not only to spend, but also to be able to keep savings for the future. Good money should give confidence.

What is the point of a fair launch if, as a result, a single player has the majority of the coins. What would it matter at all?

There are no guarantees that this didn’t happen, of course not all coins, but enough to keep the market under full control

I am not sure, but I think that the opposite will most likely happen. This is Doge coin, which has also has infinite emission. Something is telling me that it’s under control a single player. Guess where the price will end up after recent pump.

Btw jokes about Elon are not funny any more…

Guys, you are all right, and I share your thoughts, but we are repeating the same thing for the third year, in the end, besides the cool technology there is nothing left, the work on
the project has almost stopped, there are no buyers either, no one needs a cool coin that is constantly losing value, there are only miners who keep selling. GRIN is almost history, it’s not the present and has no chance for the future unless we change something. I’m just trying to find something that can save the situation.

We had everything, cool developers, everyone wrote about us, lots of articles, everyone supported us. After such a great start, we lost everything. So what led to this situation? Personally for me the answer is obvious: the imbalance of economic interests. And this imbalance is only getting worse. I have nothing against low inflation, but what is the point of waiting 50 years, killing the project with super-high inflation, it is not quite clear?

I don’t really understand such a sacrifice for the sake of future generations, they are unlikely to appreciate it, because except us, everyone has already forgotten about the GRIN, and there are no new people to be seen. Honest distribution is when everyone is good and not for those who may be able to live in 100 years. It’s just ridiculous sorry.

its not the monetary system of Grin ,but the exchanges and people who doesnt value decentralized ,Not an ico and privacy-censorship resistant. İnstead of they chase token,fan tokens and ridicilous nft popular thing.
Exchanges are resisting to Grin upgrade and new listings,becuz of many regulation and etc. i think only way to Grin survive is to be more decentralized and adoption via PAYMENT CHannels.
.

4 Likes

Same as before. I didn’t join because there was a community behind it. The technology was interesting compared to what I saw out there. I’d still have discussions about Grin on keybase if people asked questions or shared ideas because the tech isn’t less interesting now.

The emission curve was known before launch. Whoever bought Grin opted into this emission schedule. Nobody was forced to play the game nor are they forced now. 01 Catheryne Nicholson & Ignotus Peverell: Welcome Remarks - YouTube

You’re speculating about a case and then following with a solution that augments the problem you describe. As was mentioned before, the inflation you argue is bad actually helps fight their holdings in the first decade or two.

The emission was set in stone at launch. There’s a sea of other projects with more greedy monetary policies for people that believe an alternative policy is better. Forking Grin is also an option, nobody is stopping anyone doing it for whatever reason they choose to do it.

People need to start contributing - talk is cheap, get your hands dirty. Your enthusiasm about improving things is what we need, but changing the monetary policy to artificially stimulate greedy people to start hoarding coins so that we see higher exchange activity feels against the Grin spirit.

Value should be preserved throughout the generations. Bitcoin is one ongoing experiment we can watch unfold in real time. Grin is another one trying a slightly different approach. Nobody knows what the future holds and I’m sure both communities hope one of such decentralized projects is a winner in the end because cryptocurrencies isn’t about any particular coin winning (even though it sometimes feels that way), but rather about having an option to use a new system that requires less trust and has less potential for abuse. Grin either succeeds in the long term or fails in the long term. It was never meant to be judged on its 3rd year. You are correct that we need to get more developers and activity though.

2 Likes

We are all aware of this, but you are contradicting yourself and mixing too much stuff trying to find a one fix-for-all solution, sadly, that’s not possible. Grin is an open source project, we were able to compensate contributors for their work, and we are still able to do it, did they leave because money? of course not, look at the rates, there were pretty good competent rates. Also, we are still able to do that because of generous donations, what is the economic insentive for those who donated to Grin? Please, I want to know, because I don’t see any. Were those who donated stupid? You will say yes, they were stupid, probably, but I will never do it. They did it because they believe in what Grin is and is meant to be.

Is there a lack of articles about Grin? Yes, so what? Grin is not news worthy, what is the problem with that?

If your argument is that people are not investing in Grin because of the monetary policies, well, you are right, but that is nothing new. Why should we adapt Grin to fit investors’ needs?

I’m more worried about miners, we need to make things easier for them as well for users. They keep the network safe. Now, should I be worried about those who only chase profits wanting to destroy Grin just because they want to make some profits before pivoting onto the next coin? Grin does not need them at all, well… actually… we need them as far as possible.

I’m not arguing against profits, making profits is totally fine. I’m arguing against destroying the fairest, most descentralized, and simplest cryptocurrency project out there.

Just go to the webiste and you will see:

Electronic transactions for all.
Without censorship or restrictions.

Designed for the decades to come, not just for tomorrow.
To be used by anyone, anywhere.

At this point I’m starting to think that you are trolling here.

by accident i stumbled upon the requirement to open a port on the router for running a dogecoin node.

When Grin launched it had similar requirements that i felt to be absolutely horrible. This issue has been long solved since, and it reminded be that Grin really did improve a lot in a short period of time.

I am happy to be around and i think, if we can maintain civil and polite discussions, devs will come back eventually.

Keep up the good work and please don’t fork, it won’t solve any problems Grin has. Its monetary policy i consider beautiful since its fair towards late joiners who will discover Grin in some years.

6 Likes

I think this is indeed the key, too many pointless and negative discussions in the past drove away developers. If we change the tone and how we interact with eachother in this project, I think old and new developers will come to the project.

In crypto there is a near infinite possibility for growth, so to assume that the high supply will keep on resulting in a lower price rests on the assumption that there is no significant adoption. In reality, supply can be easily outpaced by growth.

Having said that, I think we have to wait for the next bull run for Elon Musk or others to hype Grin to the moon and reach much higher values than it has now. In the mean time, if the price of Grin will go down, my orders will be there together with this mysterious whale to catch some Grin on the way down.

One thing I noted in the past years is that those who are negative about Grin are often not the most active in the project or in the forum. I think if you involve yourself more in the project, you will see there is plenty to love and plenty to be optimistic for the project, including the price of Grin in the medium to long term @gringott.one :smiley:

2 Likes

Maybe I regret telling this, because I like grin being cheap for the next years, but Elon was one of the first contributors to the Grin is dead meme contest.

And he leaked he thinks: “Time is the ultimate currency.”

3 Likes

Lol, … would Elon Musk be the mysterious whale buying up Grin :astonished: :upside_down_face:

he is dropping hints :joy:

1 Like

Elon, if you are reading this, Hello :wave:

1 Like