Pause GRIN Community Council - we need your opinion!

MCM-Mike (as CC member):

Agenda for next Grin meeting tomorrow:

We are discussing this topic on the following plattforms:

Please share your thoughts on this topic and if possible join the meeting to express your oppinion.

1 Like

MCM-Mike (personal)


For full transparency this is what I posted in the GRIN council group, as we where speaking about dissolving the Community Council:

I am on my phone, therefore only a short note from my side about this topic:

It is somehow my fault at least a bit, from what I can reflect over the last 6-8 months.
I was very active prior to creating the community council as well as during the first period. I always did a lot of meetings, notes, getting users to join the meeting, etc. Just have a structured meeting.

But during the last 6-8 months I could not be as active as I wish I where. Due to personal circumstances ( positiv) and lack of time which to concentrate on GRIN.

Building new Blockchain companies , while overseeing the other existing companies did take a toll on my time, which I have to admit to myself.

We created this new room where the important things where posted. Which I mostly did not read if I am honest as my signatures where not always in short reach, as I am not carrying them around with me.

Personally I am not sure if I should take a break from the CC, as i also lost touch with the grin community last 6 month. Have not been active on keybase, forum , IRC, etc.

  • I would love to see one more funding request and then apply for a swap of my person. ( Funding: BTC/GRIN swaps) with code audits and community projects.

  • We got KuCoin to reconsider deposit withdraws for GRIN ( still some paperwork needs to be filled) .

Please be honest with me and let me know if I am the one blocking the progress here.


We need the community involvement here please:

[end quote]


No never pause.
Mcm-mike has done so much for Grin. GrinCc intentions are honest. I both support Mcm-mike and Grincc governance.


@mcm-mike Pausıng GRINCC is a bad idea. Grin communıty council members are trusted members and doing a good work. Grin should stay decentralised. Keep up the good work ! :wave:
Thanks for also.

i love GRIN and it’s core idea.:}


My opinion/take on the current situation of the Grin Community Council.
Admittedly, there is a lot that could work better. Although the idea behind decentralization is great, in any organization it is good to divide tasks and to organize backup members for those tasks and to have consistency in activity. Especially in consistency we are lacking as members and as council. I will explain more below.

The main problem with decentralization and voluntary council members:
We are all volunteers who have a variable amount of time and no consistent time available, that leads to problems now and then. Especially since most of us are business owners and have families, free time is simply limited and variable with us sometimes having not enough time to actively keep track of everything going on in Grin.
For example, @mcm-mike who took on sort of a ‘leader’ role when the CC was started, had less time in the last 6-8 months. Coincidentally, I also had less time in this period. Even though I announced my upcoming lack of time beforehand, this does not mean the other council members suddenly had the time available to cover for the tasks we normally took on. @davidtavarez took on a large share of the work but it must have felt awkward to be the one to manage his own funding request, organize voting on it and then request payment which resulted in him having to draft his own payment transactions while at the same time he wass taking on many other CC responsibilities while having to work on Grin++. A bit uncomfortable I can imagine and demotivating :grimacing:.

Did the OC not have these issues?
I am not an insider but I think they did have these problems to some extend and they managed to minimize the problems efficiently by having:

  1. clear agreements that council members should attend meetings and afterwards sign transactions. Having a clear pattern/habit works well and the CC should consider copying this habit from the OC.
  2. The OC had a secret weapon, someone who both a member, who was qualified and got paid and therefore had a fixed time and energy available to make sure administration did not fall behind.

The CC has groundkeepers, but they are in a somewhat weird position of being both insider and outsider of the council while not always having direct access to the information needed (for example having to make a financial overview without having access to the wallets). For a groundkeeper to take on such a role, it would be better to have one of them be a council member with access to the keys for drafting, financial administration, access to Github to manage all the payment requests and access to the CC Telegram to follow discussions. Basically we need or own lehnberg in the CC council.

We need to own our mistakes and admit that going on as we did in the last half year is not a good way forward since we were inefficient, not very effective and some members and contributors got demotivated. We need to agree to have systematic activity on the forum key-base and attend CC meetings. If 2 times a month is to many, at least we can make sure we get most CC members in one meeting once a month. We should try to plan fixed time in the day or week to read up and make sure we all are up to date on what is going on in the community. I do not think this would take to much time, again it is just about creating an effective habit/pattern and we would have a lot of improvements from the current situation.

Should we pause or quit the CC…?
IMO that would not solve the issue at all, it would just make the gap of a fully functioning CC even bigger. If the OC would be interested we could consider merging with them at some point but for the time being I think we need to just focus on practical issues such as creating a system for administration by assigning someone who actually owns the responsibility and by having regular meetings followed by transaction drafting and signing.
Unless we have someone who consistently has free time available to stay on top of everything going on in the project, we need to pay someone to have this fixed time and responsibility. Our experiences so far tell us that among the current members no one can provide this consistency in activity since we all have the Grin CC as a hobby on the side with fluctuating time and energy available. The most logical solution would be to upgrade a groundskeeper to council member with responsibility of keeping track funding requests and administration.


You touched on a very good topic. Kucoin should open. I congratulate you. :clap::clap:

1 Like

I will just comment (Keybase, Telegram) on a few points from my perspective:

Signing transaction:

We as the CC have setup a Bitcoin multi-sig address where each CC member holds on key to it.
More details here: GitHub - grincc/security: Repository for keeping track of the quaterly updates related to Grin Community Fund

If we draft a transaction, one from the council takes on the task and drafts a transaction for us to sign. We then have the responsibility to double-check the transaction and sign them in order for the transaction to get broadcasted.

Each of the CC members has to do their own due diligence on the

  • transaction itself
  • the amount we sending
  • receiving address of receipent
  • and double-check the return address.

Therefore I made sure we had the receiving addresses all prior to the draft of a transaction in the past.
I created a private project on ( where we stored all recipient addresses which where double checked and confirmed by the recipient. So we would not send to a wrong address by accident.

As this is not public I made a small screenshot without revealing to much private information from any recipient:

This process made sure we had the correct addresses and we made no mistake.

Also David wrote a small script, which helped us calculate the BTC amount as well as the GRIN amount, which was always helpful in the process.

After drafting the transaction, each CC member had to sign the transaction and following their own process. Signing a multi-sig address, where I had to make sure we not loosing any funds as well as sending the right amount, was not a 3min task.

How each CC members stored his private key is not up for public discussions, but I can elaborate a bit about the possible choices:

  • Software wallet on computer (encrypted, password protected)
  • Hardware wallets (Trezor, etc )
  • Virtual encrypted drives, with a client on it.
  • offline signing wallets
  • etc

In my case, as I am following the (CCSS) C4 code of ethics, as well as some of their technical procedure, was not a quick task to sign a transaction. Also additional personal technical and organizational processes are in place to sign a multi-sig transaction, which takes time to do and follow it accordingly.

CC Inactivity of members:

It is true , some of us are inactive currently at least for the public eye.
We definitely need to work on this front and need to find solutions on how to be more active and helping the GRIN community.

Possible solutions?

  • Replace some GRIN CC members by more active community members
  • add one more person to our CC to let the community know about our internal status?
  • community input
  • ???


At tomorrows GRIN meeting, let us vote on what possibilities we have and let us publicly discuss these. Agenda: Community Council (CC), 22 November 2022 · Issue #72 · grincc/agenda · GitHub

I am well connected with a lot of GRIN community members as well as some exchanges where we are making progress. There is more I do in the background then I am sharing publicly and I want to keep it that way.

I don’t want to hinder the CC in any means just making a few statements about our structure and processes.

There is a lot more than I can describe here, feel free to ask questions or get involved with us.

  1. We need a re-affirmation from all existing CC members that he/she is still able and willing to commit necessary time to the project

  2. There needs to be a designated time, for example The Friday following the group meeting on keybase when-by those members are expected to sign the necessary transactions for approved disbursements.

  3. I’m willing to take on an expanded groundskeeper role to include management of payments, communication with the working parties and council members to minimize any delays or concerns.

  4. The trend of people disappearing knowing they have obligations they agree to is unacceptable and reflects poorly on current and future contributors


I think that enhances the communication and i am volunteered to do. Good idea. :+1:

I agree that this is the right process, thanks for sharing. Let’s say it takes an hour (?), and let’s say we all follow the same process, that’s fine. All FRs require at least two weeks while we wait for the response, but in practice most of the time it takes 3-4 weeks to actually vote, but even in that situation we know in plenty of time that a vote will occur. Sometimes it even takes several days to collect the response and vote from the CC. What I am trying to say is that even though the signing process might take 1 hour, we are all aware with a good amount of time that a transaction must be signed, and we can schedule time in advance for that.

  • I suggest every member of the CC to schedule the time in advance because we all know well in advance when a transaction needs to be signed. If we did this, transactions would not take a day to complete.
  • I second that :point_up: and if a member cannot assist, at least, members must be available to initiate or sign any required transactions when a vote takes place.
  • I’m in favor of 1 meeting per month. Demand just one hour per month it is reasonable.
  • Agree.
  • I think there is no need to expand the members, but a groundkeeper can take the responsibility of managing the payments, something like this :point_down:

The situation is very simple: if no one assumes any responsibility of any kind, then there is no reason to exist. No one has explained why a transaction takes weeks or months to be made. Or why there are still pending commitments to fulfill. My guess is that I won’t get the answer. It’s not just about payment delays, that’s just one of the symptoms. It has not yet been established how, for example, the Farm Project will be managed, who will be responsible for it and what the process would be. I have been asking for months even for opinions and have not received any response. This PR: Added spending logs & transparency report of spending for 2022-Q1 and 2022-Q2 by cekickafa · Pull Request #12 · grincc/finance ( is not being taken care of. How Testnet miners’ power consumption will be covered is not defined, and how that process looks like, or how we are going to prove to the Community that these miners are used exclusively for the Testnet. Some members have not been able to take an hour to attend the meetings or have never suggested a single topic. None of this has anything to do with how transactions are signed.

The explanation of all of this is clear to me: there is not enough motivation to assume responsibilities.

I have no problem with anyone in particular, I appreciate and respect each of you, I am not assuming malice. I don’t want this disagreement with the CC to become something personal that could damage our relationship online and/or offline. I’m not trying to put the blame on anyone in particular, I think the burden of making this work falls on everyone, including me, that’s why I try to do everything I can.

I am not saying that the CC should take care of everything, that is not the role of the CC. the CC must guarantee the security of the keys and that the Community can use the funds as long as the spending guide is respected. CC should not be an obstacle, but a driving force.

I want to clarify something. I value good norms, one of them is: Reciprocity. Reciprocity enables people to achieve things they could not do on their own. By working together, people can achieve more than they would individually. Lack of reciprocity leads to frustration, dissatisfaction, conflict and eventually loss of trust. When two parties reach an agreement, both parties are expected to honor the agreement. The phrase: “a person who acts with decency” is used in some parts of Latin America to refer to someone who acts with empathy, who cares about the welfare of others. However, decency can also have different connotations depending on the language and country. I will keep this in mind the next time I use this word publicly.


If the CC wants to continue to function, it would be best to define responsibilities, to begin with, who is responsible for drafting the transactions; that would be a good first step. But also:

  • Add a maximum time limit to vote for a funding request, the minimum is known to be 2 weeks, but the maximum should be 4.

  • Groundkeepers should make sure the payments are made properly.

  • Add a limit of 24 hours to send the transaction of an approved request. 24 hours after the end of the meeting when a funding request is approved.

  • As for the mining farm, it is needed to define the roles of who is responsible for making sure everything works, creating a report and being responsible for withdrawing the rewards every 2 weeks.

  • Define how who is going to send the coins to compensate the Testnet miners that the CC said it was going to cover, how and when.

  • Upload to github security proof every 3 months, to make sure keys are not lost.

  • The expectations that the community should expect from the members of the CC should be clearly stated.

The following questions must also be answered:

  • Are CC members merely key holders?
  • Who will be responsible for leading the meetings?

If no one assumes any responsibility of any kind, then there is no reason to exist.


I would make this 48 hours. Mostly it will be done in 24 hours since we expect to sign but 48 hours should be more realistic for all cases.

Security proofs take a lot of time, IMO once or twice a year (so every 6 to 12 months) should suffice.

Apart from the suggestions above, I fully agree with the proposed changes.


One of the first questions we should probably ask is do any existing CC members want to leave?

  • If an existing member wants to leave, then should a groundskeeper be added, so they become a keyholder and would be responsible for drafting & managing all transactions. I think it could be beneficial to have a groundskeeper integrated into the CC.

^ I’d like to hear other opinions on this. Pro and cons.


Imagine that no one is leaving, right? who is going to do what? why do you avoid answering honestly? My questions are very direct. If you have a team of 10 people and 9 out of 10 don’t do anything, why ask those 9 if they want to leave? it doesn’t make sense, it doesn’t matter if they want to leave or stay, someone has to do the work, and the only important question is: who is going to do what? days come and go, and no one commits to anything. What a joke.


I agree with everything you say, and probably some changeup is needed.

As a devil’s advocate, I will say it is good to have friction in the process of adding and removing CC members. If it was quick/easy to add/remove CC members, then some faction could join the community and build some popularity in a short time to get into CC. If they can do this a few times, then they can steal funds. I see new users become quite popular after only a few months of interaction, but very few users that have remained loyal to the project for many years.

So in that regard, I think it would be important to maintain a threshold of CC members which are very long term contributors, even if those members cannot participate very actively anymore in day to day routine.


I’m not sure. That’s why I asked. If someone wishes to leave then I’d propose that a groundskeeper is added and assumes the bulk of admin responsibility: Agenda: Community Council (CC), 22 November 2022 · Issue #72 · grincc/agenda · GitHub

I don’t know why you keep repeating this, you’re sounding like a broken record now. If no one had assumed any responsibility then we wouldn’t be having this discussion now, no funding requests would have ever been approved and and no txs would have ever been created/ signed.

You should just be honest and say what you really mean. IMO it sounds like you think some of us are useless, low integrity people who are not devoting enough time to the project.

Perhaps consider that members are reluctant to volunteer to take on responsibility because we can’t deal with the added stress in our life’s and can’t guarantee we’ll be able to fulfill those commitments for the foreseeable future. The whole crypto space is quite toxic and depressing rn and many have been stepping back to take some timeout.

  • My opinion is that the community should hope CC members are more than just key holders, however, there shouldn’t be any expectation for them to be more than this, unless they’re fulfilling a funding request. However, if members can only just be a keyholder for a prolonged period, they should offer to step down. The most important thing from my perspective is that development moves forward outside of just maintaining the core codebase and the community has as many funding routes as possible. Grin needs to be keep building, everything else is noise.

  • I could take responsibility for leading the 10:00 UTC meeting. But can’t even attend the 15:00 UTC since it’s 3-4am for me.

A groundskeeper.


Disagree, as discussed in other chats. 48 hours.

I can’t do this, but I suggest a CC member who currently has access to the GrinCC wallet.

Have we voted already on covering electric costs? How long is CC covering them for?

  • Funding requests need to be made for any electric reimbursement. Requests and payments would be inline with CC funding guidelines .Whoever makes the payment depends on 1) if it’s paid in Grin or BTC 2) If we add a groundskeeper who becomes a keyholder.

  • I’m not sure how to prove said miners are on testnet. Would be easy to get a rough ballpark on how many were active if the testnet explorer tracked network hashrate.

First, because I want to, and second, because the statement is correct.

Wrong, we are having this discussion right now because I have decided to speak up and make this issue public, that’s why, make no mistake. I know you don’t think it is responsible to complete a transaction almost 6 months after a request is approved. You know that the draft of almost every transaction has been created by a single person. You know that only @Anynomous has been always present at the bi-weekly meetings, I don’t think he has missed any, and I have missed a few. The same could not be said for the rest. You well know that collecting the necessary signatures has taken weeks and even months. You know that I have done the role that you say will fix things, and still the problem persists. You know that collecting feedback and votes for funding requests takes days, if not weeks sometimes. None of that is being responsible.

Once again. I apologize if this seems personal, it’s not personal to me, I’m not trying to bash anyone here. I hope when the waters settle we can laugh about this drama together.” ← How does that sound? That’s what I told you guys a week ago.

Incomplete information was shared on Keybase about “wait times” between request approval and transaction submission. Although it appeared that the intent was clearly intended to mislead the conversation, I assumed that was a mistake.

“Sounds like”, what?! that is so childish. I have never used those words. These are my words:

I want to clarify something. I have no problem with anyone in particular, I appreciate and respect each of you. I don’t want this disagreement with the CC to become something personal that could damage our relationship. I’m not trying to put the blame on anyone in particular, I think the burden of making this work falls on everyone.”. ← I said that to you guys weeks ago and I stand by what I said.

It is normal to expect that at first people will react by trying to defend themselves, but enough time has passed. Mate, I like you, you are a good and a smart person. Please stop playing politics. it is more honest to try to improve after accepting that, for whatever reason, one makes mistakes.

1 Like

In terms of funding requests, you’re specially referring to the 10% Grin amount you were owed, right? There was also some money you were owned for shipping G1s, but there was no funding request for it( which I’ve tried to take some responsibility for and posted this in keybase (keybase://chat/grincoin#general/55235)

As I said in our CC chat, it looks like everyone forgot we still had the 10% Grin payment to make to you, which I acknowledge is unacceptable. “I can’t speak for others, but I wasn’t aware you were still owned 3,750 EUR in Grin until you mentioned it on 15/11. Looking through this CC chat I can only find 1x other mention of it from 17/08” which no one seemed to remember until you bought it up last month. Even then it seemed there was some confusion over the Grin amount owed.

Yes @Anynomous has been awesome! He’s done heaps. So has @mcm-mike & @hendi too, they’ve just had other commitments recently. I’ve definitely contributed the least.

There was never any intent to mislead, CC fucked up and forgot that your Grin payments were outstanding and @Cobragrin who prepared that doc wasn’t aware of it, because, no one from CC had kept track of Grin amounts owned. I apologized for this, tried to discuss it in detail and proposed solutions moving forward. But everything I say I feels like I’m just digging myself deeper in a hole. At this point it’s quite disheartening. Were there other payments not included here ?

I’m offering my opinion. I never said they were your words. They are my interpretation. I don’t see the world through your eyes and when I’m speaking here, I’m speaking for myself.

Yes, I know what you’ve said here. However to me, it seems personal. But I also accept It can be hard to articulate someone’s tone over text.

This isn’t playing politics, this is me being honest. You keep talking about being honest and having accountability. Well I offered to stand down, I’ve apologized, I’ve accepted CC fucked up and that we need to make changes moving forward( everyone agrees) , myself and other CC members have offered solutions and offered to take on more responsibility. All the details just haven’t been ironed out yet. What more do you want at this point?

1 Like

No, and this is you again proving my point over and over again, thank you, I appreciate it. Those were just two of the things that were missing, you keep repeating that as if you haven’t been paying attention. No matter if it is 10% or 1 Grin or 0.00000001 Grin, it doesn’t matter. The G1s topics is an excellent example of why such a request should not be approved without anyone being responsible. In the end someone became responsible for everything and it wasn’t you. The expected responsibility was to cover at least the shipping costs, which represent only a small part of all expenses. All issues related to that matter were resolved, and not magically.

Forgotten? How? because I remember well that I was reminding you of all the pending tasks, not just the one you’re referring to… the only way you “forgot” it is because you weren’t paying attention in the first place, and that’s being irresponsible, especially when the only role you’re expected to play until now is “key holder”. Exactly my point.

Again, that’s not true. Go to the the Github projects and take a look for yourself, and while you’re at it, please read the author of all the notes. @Cobragrin does not have access to all the information necessary to make such list by the way, but’s that another topic.

When the transaction draft is shared, all the information is shared, as well the links to where the information is taken from are posted so that it can be validated by others. I warned you weeks ago, you’re not doing yourself any favors but you are ignoring everything I say. The more you ignore what I say, the more you show how out of touch you are with the functions of the CC.

I really don’t want to continue with this back and forward @Neo please. I offer you a truce, and let’s focus on working things out :white_flag:

I agree with this, we made mistakes, we acknowledge we made them (I completely overlooked the 10% Grin payment owned). To be honest I do not care how call mistakes, fuck-up or lack of accountability, but I think we did acknowledge and apologized enough. Doing more so would not serve any purpose while that energy is better used for something positive → improving.
I think most important to take into account here is intend. No one had the bad intention to my understanding and no one intentially denied payment or misled. We simply messed up, not even major if you ask me. It even looks like most community members do not percieve there being a problem.
Important to me is to brain storm here about simple procedural improvements so we can avoid future mistakes. This includes better definition of tasks and expectations. You can call this accountability, but IMO we all tried our best, we simply are human and make mistakes. That does not make us indecent, it just shows us we have to improve.