He has a point here. i agree. And thats a problem,liquidity and economically ,for asic producers and exchanges and for merchants as well.
But you cant solve that with changing monetary policy of Grin ,can you change Bitcoin monetary policy? Both NO.
But i got your point ,talking about next 100 years later is an excuse and ignoring the problems of Grin why things stallling and shrinking so far with ecosystem. Lets not ignore the problems , but forking ,changing the immutability and dividing the community is what will really kill this Grin idea.
Very good discussion. It seems that price appreciation brings in new users and developers which leads to price appreciation and so on. If you ever have a conversation about a new coin, you cannot end without mentioning it’s price. Currently I’d estimate that well over 90% of all crypto use is “buy low, sell higher”. With an emission rate like grin’s, usage may remain low until a digital war becomes evident. We expect it but until then coin will probably look dead. Just keep on prepping. If things do get bad, the grin community will be rewarded for their patience and foresight. Still best to hedge bets on other coins and ideas though. Good to be open minded. I’m interested to see how the delegated PoS projects work out.
Is there any other example of a crypto project where devs have left, only because of the tone in the community? I think it is much more the lack of near-term growth that gets people to look elsewhere, while an annoying discussion could be the last straw for some. Lack of growth is lack of reward and everyone wants to be rewarded in one way or the other. You’ll need extremely altruistic contributors if the only promise is fairness towards other people at some unspecified time in the future, but typically people ask “what’s in it for me besides of the regular pay?”.
Regarding pointless discussions: an issue that I see with the way the project is set up, is that there is no project manager. Contributors have to discuss every little detail with the entire community, which is more emotionally taxing than just having to report to a single entity (who then talks to the community), like in a regular job. Some developers are more outgoing and don’t mind, but many are more introverted. I can imagine this turns the type of developer away that only wants to deal with the tech and not so much with people. This is an unnecessary loss. In my opinion the question should not be, “How can we approach as many developers as possible on twitter?” or “How can we get the community to behave better?”, but “How can we make working on Grin more attractive for different types of people?”. Ideally you want the best developers you can get and you want them to stay for the long term. You cannot control how community members are reacting, but you can control how the basic parameters for developers are and I suspect that many would not be stressed out by community reactions if everything else was great. What is making Grin a better place to work at than a big tech company or another crypto project that gets constant hype?
I guess more exchanges would list Grin if it it would not cause them such headaches. From their perspective, there are 10,000 assets that are easy to list, because they all work in the same way, and then there is Grin that works differently, requires more steps to work with, cannot properly be put into cold storage and price is 99.9% down, while everyone keeps telling them that it will only rise in 50 years, because of fairness™. Listing Grin requires a lot more enthusiasm than listing any other coin. Let’s be thankful, that TO is so generous with their time and energy.
TO probably has a higher risk tolerance than bigger exchanges. If I’d ran a multi-billion exchange, I never would list a coin that cannot be integrated with my existing processes for cold storage, because my shareholders would not allow it.
Both, I think, but it depends on the exchange. The crypto project should make sure, to keep the hurdles as low as possible. With another fork of something that is already listed, it is a non-issue, but with coins that are special in every way, the situation is different.
True, this is a downside of having such a nice decentralized governance, it is a price I think worthy of paying.
We do no need to make the community more well behaved, but we should stand up and speak up for each-other, and also we should not spend to much time reiterating the same answers.
For example, we already answered @Markozzz and @gringott.one quite elaborately.
Although we understand where they are comming from, in the end this post summarizes it quite well:
The complain is mostly that the current supply does not favor innitial investors, which is true and a known fact from day 1. Should we change the design of grin for that, no, of-course we should not.
Other valid points are mentioned though. Yes we should make working on Grin attractive, e.g. by having our developers back instead of burning them in public. And yes we should make implementing Grin on an exchange easy by providing template example code.
I think we are all in favor of listing Grin on more exhanges, but not paid, the exchange has to be willing themselves to list Grin. Did Bitcoin ever pay for listing?.., neither should Grin.
Basically most complains historically are asking to interfere with the price to favor a few, not the many. Again, if you get more involved you see there are many good things for Grin on the horizon such as hardware wallet support, CoinSwap which could greatly enhance privacy at basically no cost whatsoever, just to name a few.
My opinion (no financial advice) to those who did not read the whitepaper and overpaid in the early days of Grin, buy more, slowly scale in and on the long run your investment is more likely to become profitable. And again, get involved yourself, learn more about Grin and help shape the feature of Grin. Joining the discussions on this forum is a great first step for that, thanks for actively contributing here and voicing your opinions.
I am not so sure about that. As I said, I think it is an unnecessary loss and I am not sure if the project can really afford that. If for example instead of single developers, a company (or better mulltiple ones) would apply for funding, then I think the project could profit from that (consistency, reliability, efficiency) without really giving up decentralization, while individual employees could be anonymous to the community and I see nothing that would be wrong with that, as long as the implementations are as per specifications.
Just an example and encouragement to think outside of the box.
Creating a role for a coordinator and facilitator would be technically similar and it does not have to mean that a power imbalance needs to be introduced at the same time, but it would allow people to focus on what they can do best. I think @lehnberg did a lot of that, but he is not around at the moment, unfortunately and there is a gap that was not successfully filled yet.
I do not exactly disagree with you on this and I think you brought out good points, but I think you’re missing some details. The Open Source world is full of long/pointless/toxic/ego-centered discussions, this is in fact, very a common thing, toxic as hell but common. I think you are totally right here, people will eventually ask themselves: what’s in it for me besides of the regular pay? definitely no one likes to be insulted over and over again. You can receive the perfect salary but you will eventually quit if your work environment is toxic. This is the same everywhere. Now, combine that with a lack of project growth as you mention, the result is simple: total demoralization and loss of motivation. Grin, as a project, had both things in the recent past.
The reason why every change should be detailed and openly discussed is because of Grin’s nature. Projects that are being developed by private entities backed by investors are driven by one thing always: make profits through technology. Grin is driven by the technology itself.
I think that there is lack of direction and probably that is what you’re trying to describe @grn. We haven’t even finished embracing Mimblewimble capabilities. We want to be unique but at the same time we also want to make Grin look and feel like Bitcoin. Exchanges can easily see this and say: “fuck it! let me know when you make up your own mind” and then we put the blame on them but we can’t accept that indeed we are not focused on making things easier but more complicated. Most discussions are about being the one with the biggest brain and less about solving any issue. This is not helping to bring and keep contributors either. Why someone will code or write something to see it die in a Pull Request? I believe this is affecting us more than the monetary policy.
And I think that this is at least partially the result of contributors being micro-managed by an entire community that partially consists of nervous speculators. As a result, contributors cannot fully focus on their actual task.
I can certainly resonate with that. Lack of direction can kill a project.
chain size is incredibly small (I’ve been running a node since day one, it’s under 3GB)
both the server and the wallet are incredibly stable
moved to tor network
superlative mobile wallets for both iOS and Android
mining has finally transitioned to ASIC
hardware wallet support is coming
I believe lots of misunderstandings stem from the fact we all have different goals.
If you think Grin must make its early adopters rich, then I get your frustration.
But not even Bitcoin made all of its early adopters rich, most of them sold before seeing significant gains. Bitcoin rewarded people with conviction and diamond hands, not whiny early adopters.
I am not sure Grin will reward anyone, I don’t even care even though I’ve been mining it since day 1 with any possible device.
If there is something I am concerned about is hashrate distribution, but this had to be expected since iPollo is the first company delivering actual miners into the hand of customers and distribution is obviously skewed (remember Antminer?).
If we want to learn from the past, we need to remember how Bitcoin got its traction: people started using it. Yes, this also means not being listed on exchanges is a major roadblock but no, we are not going to pay for listings.
Also, Bitcoin got its fame from shady markets initially. I am not suggesting grin be used for shady things but I wonder why it is not even considered given its properties.