Everyone who is against any changes just wants to make martyrs of the original investors.
For example, I don’t want to wait 100 years to at least cover the losses.
Everything will be as described by the author of the post - a big whale will appear and buy the coins, then it will manipulate the price and the GRIN will turn into a first-class shit coin.
Something needs to change…
For example, reducing the block reward will increase the number of miners and, consequently, decentralization.
Who is against any changes?
@Markozzz
No one here is arguing against change.
As mentioned in many of the responses here, lowering the block reward is less fair and favors innitial investors and whales.
Besides what is the ‘problem’ you are trying to solve? To me it is not even clear what the problem is if any…
O and how would reducing the block reward lead to more decentralisation?, I do not see the logic in that.
Okay, if it’s so hard to see what that would do, then ask yourself if you would want to sell your coins if you knew that 60 times less coins would be printed tomorrow (86400->1440), perhaps you would think, if so, the coin is probably undervalued and it makes sense to even buy more while you can. No one would let him buy more. We would get a situation where we would be transported 60 years into a future where inflation is only ~2%, And the distribution happened among people who believed in the idea from the beginning. They didn’t buy ATH trying to catch another hype, they knew they were taking a risk, but they got hit even harder every time. They don’t deserve to be screwed by the miners.
Isn’t it hard to understand that it’s not really the miners who secure the network, it’s the people who pay to the miners. Miners will always come if there is profit and leave if there is no profit. Most of them work not for the idea but for the money. If those who pay them leave, they will leave here as well. Is it that difficult to understand?
I mean it’s better to have a whale with 7% supply than 50%, if regular folks wont see additional reason to buy, this will most likely happen. And this is really sad.
Messing with the block reward and departing from 1 per second forever is what would make GRIN a shitcoin.
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.
i can trarnslate this post:
hey guys! Lets fork GRIN because he cant grow.
devs, please, can u make rate emission low?
i bought since 2019 and i cant wait anymore.
we need pump!
please, help!
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?
and listing on binance!
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.
Exactly, grin is little different) But strange how little TO was managed it well, when someone like CoinEx still cannot launch it)
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.
and thats why Binance was list BEAM with same mechanics 
My shareholders would be fine if they get paid for it.
So its not about tech Q, its about who will pay?)
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.