Request for: Grin to buy Grin and hold as reserve

Governance
1

I would like to request that Grin uses 1 BTC from its fund to buy and hold Grin. At todays price it would buy G.371003. ( we really need a sign like the £¥€$).

Since we are all here because want to see Grin succeed, and believe that it will, it makes sense for the Grin fund to hold Grin. I believe this will be a long term strategic investment in Grin and it’s eco system.

I would like to point out a paper put out by Fidelity:

Bitcoin First : Why investors need to consider bitcoin separately from other digital assets.

Fidelity has 4.5 trillion under management.

Although the paper is supportive of Bitcoin, it makes claims that I can see that are not true. For instance:

"While it certainly is possible in a free market of emerging digital assets, we believe it is highly unlikely
for bitcoin to be replaced by an “improved” digital asset for several reasons. One of the biggest reasons is that any improvement in one characteristic of bitcoin, such as improving its speed or scalability, leads to a reduction in another characteristic, such as bitcoin’s level of decentralization or security. This tradeoff is known as the blockchain trilemma. " I think they watched a talk by Vitalik on the trilemma.

As a non expert, I believe that Grin has not sacrificed in its security or decentralization. So, it seems to me that there is a serious lack of knowledge with the “smart money” at the moment. So it’s better for Grin to own Grin now before the “smart money” gets to know Grin.

Cyber wars, great power wars, currency wars, energy wars, nuclear wars, economic wars, tec wars,… Grin was “Designed for the decades to come, not just for tomorrow…” I think this investment in Grin will help Grin and its eco system be self sufficient in these coming years and decades.

3 Likes
2

No they will never do this because they are smart people not stupid like some individuals to which they sell this …

3

Btw, we do have a currency symbol: ツ

2 Likes
4

I dont see why not. The up side is far greater than the down side.

5

The Japanese have already claimed it.

shi-tsu7
shi-tsu7800×450 38.8 KB

The Yen is a Y with two lines, we can do the same. For instance take the Phoenician Gimel and put two lines, for the eyes and the smile. I think the letter G has a partial origin in Gimel. So we are kind of hinting at Grin with it.

Also, do you really want to put a smile with your money? Its good to represent Grin overall, but for the cash symbol, you could use something else.

hand-drawn-phoenician-alphabet-black-isolated-white-background-ancient-font-set-vector-illustration-145559919
hand-drawn-phoenician-alphabet-black-isolated-white-background-ancient-font-set-vector-illustration-1455599191600×1689 126 KB

1 Like
6

How do you define “upside”? Higher price? Or usable as digital cash? The goals are different, and often competing. Grin is about building a usable cash system. Price is not a matter we concern ourselves with.

7

I was just letting you know a symbol had already been chosen, because it seemed like you didnt know we have one. But Im not the person to ask about changing it :upside_down_face:

8

By upside I meant it is more likely that Grin will go to 1$ than Bitcoin going to $400k, so why not exchange 1 Bitcoin for +300k Grin’s and hold as reserve.

What Grin is to you, might not be what Grin is to me or someone else. Just because you dont care about price, does not mean that it does not matter.

9

I’m not asking to change it. I am changing it. Whether others use mine instead of the the Japanese sign is up to people.

10

On the flip side of your coin, Grin is more likely to go to $.0025 than Bitcoin is to go to $1K. That blade cuts both ways.

You think development fund should be gambled. Good for you. Others would rather it be managed more conservatively. Development fund doesn’t need to get rich, just needs to remain solvent to pay for development tasks. Conservative strategy is better for the long term success of the development fund.

Of course, you are always welcome to buy and hold Grin yourself, though few around here would advise it :slight_smile:

2 Likes
11

A fund without an asset that it was created for is a stupid fund.
That is why TOP managers are given part of the shares so that they are interested in the well-being of the company

2 Likes
12

Saying its gambling is ridiculous. Putting 1% of the Grin donations into Grin to help fund it in the future is not gambling. Keeping all the funds in one asset is not being conservative, it is gambling. How do you know they will not ban the Bitcoin wallet where the funds are held? Or that BTC will not crash to 200$?

Funny dude. For the last two years all I have been doing is loading up on Grins. You really need to stop trying to advice people! Anyone who says don’t buy Grin when its less than 5 pence, has no idea what they are talking about!

1 Like
13

“A fund without an asset that it was created for is a stupid fund.”

Agree , 100%.

1 Like
14

Around a year ago the Grin Community Council bought up a sizable amount of Grin since we want to have enough Grin to pay our groundskeepers and developers partially and in some cases fully in Grin.

On the long term we prefer to have a passive Grin income via the large number of miners we bought that were not operational at that time yet:

This is even better than buying Grin since we are dollar cost averaging, providing security without dumping mined Grin on the market. Instead we use the mined Grin in day to day payments which is what Grin was build for :grin:.
Therefore I do not see the need to buy Grin again using the community fund, although I have to admit I was also tempted by the though since it is likely a good time to buy Grin. However, we try to avoid buying for ‘speculative’ reasons as we stated in the spending guidelines for the Grin Community Council. Since we have passive income in Grin now, we do not have much reason to exchange BTC for Grin.

1 Like
15

I am not speculating. I am proposing to exchange one unit of Bitcoin for 371003 units of Grin to be held in reserve for the future development of Grin and its ecosystem.

What the market says they are both worth now is irrelevant, since markets that are full of moon boys and “smart money” are not always rational. What is relevant is which unit of account is more valuable to an average intelligent human who has a basic understanding of both systems. Which they would rather hold over the coming years and decades:

1 BTC or 371003 Grin’s

One reason: BTC is not fungible.

Im assuming the address for the wallet are on the site. Im also going to assume that the fed have the address. What guarantee do you have that one of the federal agencies wont black list it? Tornado Cash and wallets in Canada were blocked.

I dont know how you guys vote on these things, but I would like this proposal voted on. I honestly cant see a down side to holding 1% of the reserve in Grin’s. Anyway, I want those who vote it down to own it. :smiling_imp::joy::joy::joy: . You lot can explain why we dont own amy Grins and why we did not buy them when they were this cheap. :joy::joy::joy::joy:

1 Like
16

Long time lurker, but ill chime in here. 1% reserve in Grin seems like a good idea to me too, but Im not sure how you do that without significant slippage. TradeOgre book is shallow and other exchanges are KYC/questionable. But the idea seems sensible to me.

17

@AceKaplin @Ghost3 @Markozzz

I just did a quick on the top of my head calculation and found the CC currently holds approximately 0.9% of the community funds value in Grin. Since the community miners are working hard, I expect this percentage will still go up. So we are already holding around 1% of the funds value in ツ👍. If you also count the funds the CC spend on mining equipment dedicated to Grin, the amount funds spend indirectly on Grin is much higher than 1%.

4 Likes
19

What’s CC? Is this the fund that was split last year?

The 1% was just used to make a point. Make it 50% if you like, or 95%. I see no value in holding BTC for Grin or for anyone else for that matter.

#Deleted the post as I forgot to tag you!

1 Like
20

The funds were donated from an anonymous source to keep developing grin. Whether the ratio of funds is 100:0 between btc and grin or 50:50 or 0:100 is irrelevant except for 2 things:

  1. maximize the funding for development (to me it seems like btc is the right one to keep based on that, at least for some time)
  2. maximize development (if it turns out that contributors want to be paid more in grin that what the funds hold then we should probably come up with some strategy how to smartly convert a part of it and when)

For now it seems to me that having BTC is way less risky, especially due to current high emission rate. This means that BTC guarantees us a longer development time than if we have funds in grin. You might think that people who develop for grin would want to be paid in grin but the reality is that most people currently don’t want to hold grin due to high emission rate and they can’t really dump it either because the liquidity is low on all exchanges. In a few years, when the emission rate is lower and liquidity hopefully grows, i would also suggest to change the ratio a bit but for now i think the current path is the safest one.

3 Likes
21

This year, like every year, Grin emits 1% of its soft total supply.

In each of its first 4 years, Bitcoin emitted 12.5% of its total supply.
Even this year, Bitcoin is emitting more than 1.6% of its total supply.
Only after the next halving will it fall below 1%.

Which one has the high emission rate?

The only thing high for Grin is the yearly supply inflation rate.

3 Likes