Suggestion: Return CC funds to OC

I think I’ll keep the first post here brief, I may add more detailed thoughts later but the point of this post is simple and i don’t want to cloud that.

Given the recent changes CC is undergoing, I suggest that the safest course of action might be to return the CC funds to OC at this time.

Maybe CC should be reformed and refunded again, maybe CC’s bounties need to be honored, maybe certain CC funded projects should continue however they are funded. But given the turmoil, I think it would be safest to get the funds back under the control of trusted long term active key holders in the interim.


I support this. CC was a valiant effort, but I don’t think its working. The mission of CC is unclear, but it is clear that CC is not executing well on any mission. No offense to any of the people who have committed their personal efforts to CC. We can try again another way.


IMO its very radical decision, but I got your point.
OC is more closed organization with only 2-3 active members like @oryhp @tromp and @quentinlesceller. I think it will be much harder to make some decisions after this, as CC is acting closer to people/community.

1 Like

Yes, and that was the original reason for the creation of the CC. Active community members were unsatisfied with the slow and conservative nature of OC.

But my question would be did the more liberal CC actually end up producing anything of value? The outcome was spotty at best I would say, and that was with quite an enthusiastic good group of members at a more active time. Now with most of them having fallen out of regular activity, what are the chances of their replacements doing better than the original effort? Low I would say.

I can think of a total of about 5 known and present community members who I think could appropriately sit on the CC today, aside from those stepping down and like 1-2 of them flat out don’t want to be on the CC, 2-3 of them already are on the CC and are good people but they are only really present in passing they can’t really commit to an active and directional role, and the other 1-2 of them I think are better serving the community where they are, simply providing their public input on discussion topics.


How is giving the funds back to OC going to help the project? It seems more like a step backwards.

The better option imo would be to freeze all funding until everyone is more comfortable with the direction moving forward.

As I’ve said before, 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.

Without CC the likes of Grin++ would have never received ongoing funding, when Grin++ is the preferred implementation for alot of the community, especially new comers. CoinSwap is also funded by the CC and although it’s not complete, it’s arguably the most exciting/ impactful proposal in development.

If a dev proposes a cool idea, that’s outside of the Rust implementation, then CC are going to consider any funding request that’s submitted. The same applies if someone in the community comes up with a bounty proposal. It’s going to be much hard getting OC to make these same considerations.

We also need to ask, does OC even want the burden now of managing all Grin funds? At the moment the CC takes most of the heat, runs regularly meetings, posts regular updates and is essentially the face of the community.


I think returning fund from CC to OC may not fix the current issue. Temporarily, we should suspend the funds until we have same voice on the direction.
Maybe, in the OC, we need someone has ‘leadership’ characteristic like an service delivery manager for managing projects to move forward better.

I think that battening the hatches even if it puts grin into an even slower pace is better than some kind of out of control community funds disaster. This is a backhanded compliment to the CC as it existed in a way, as aimless as I think the efforts have been I still more or less trusted most of you had good intentions. With a majority change of guard and the current community, I think the next iteration might be worse.

Do you believe the CC achieved this? I think it’s debatable. Grin++ was funded, but I’m not sure it was materially advanced. A lot of the claimed work was on user support, which I personally don’t think the development funds are responsible for. If users had just been redirected to the forums instead of Telegram there is plenty of volunteer support here.

I put a lot less stock in this than other people. More cool ideas have been actioned on a volunteer basis than through funding first. I’m not sure a single one has come to fruition, and I think funding fuels a cargo cult mentality where everyone is expecting someone else to use the cool idea. Who is even going to run a coinswap server? I can hear the funding request for that coming around the bend already

Valid question and probably not, not the way some of the community wants them managed. I will plainly admit that I preferred the original OC funding mechanism, where the fund is for the core development and everyone else is on their own. If people want something, they can build it.

1 Like

I wouldn’t say we’re at risk of an out of control funds disaster. There’s the miners, which are currently a disaster. There are incomplete funding requests, however, OC has had issues like this, that’s started debates before. Even if a dev is doing good honest work; they might have miscalculated the task and seek more funding to complete it. It’s always going to happen to some extent unless everything is bounty based.

No, but I don’t think this is just on the CC. The CC is relying on the community to submit funding requests.

I agree. You could make an argument that having funds available is a burden. It goes against the essence of a grass roots project, because, more expect some kind of compensation and could consider it unmotivating if someone else is getting funded and they’re not.

CC returning funds isn’t going to stop funding requests when OC has funds. It’s more likely to just create more tension within the community and put more pressure on OC.

There was once a consideration by lehnberg to:

If for example, CC burned through all it’s funds. Providing those funds were inline with the donors request, then would that really be a bad thing?

1 Like

We finally agree on something :raised_hands:

I second that.

Sometimes a step backwards opens a new path forward.

Not true at all, hundreds of times people are invited to the forum, but people still choose Telegram. Anyway, it is not the topic here.

Last time the guy doing that kind of task was unfairly destroyed. I doubt anyone will do it again.

Funding request? publicly running a CoinSwap server would be suicide, funded or not. Please do not do such a stupid thing.

Not so much as to compensate the weaknesses.

The main problem was not the conservative attitude of the OC. There was general support for the conservative position on changes to the protocol. The main problem was the OC’s total disconnect with the rest of the Community. Users, miners, Exchanges, and enthusiasts in general faced challenges while the OC didn’t have time for it. Years ago it was more evident because the community was much larger and active. The CC came, but failed, to compensate for the vacuum left by the OC, while the latter continued to take care of its own things.

The issue is that one could create the perfect process and structure and still fail because there is no one to fill those positions. The “anyone can do it” is a failed statement, combined with “we are only key holders” is a recipe for disaster. With the OC it was clear who did what, and what their duties were. I still maintain the opinion that the OC could have paid more attention to the rest of the world outside of Rust, but the “few things” they did they did well.

The experts in saying a lot and doing nothing can continue designing in their head the perfect process and the ideal structure, if they want, I doubt it, but I don’t care either. Anyway, the CC experiment is already dead, so logically speaking the next step is to support what’s @Trinitron is suggesting here.


Glad to see you are back :handshake:

That makes sense, even now they have big influence on CC with such agenda.


As it was said: “don’t hate the player hate the game”.


I think it failed to just small-OC copy who can communicate and fund some things with discussions, as OC decisions can not be discussed or crtitized cause they have “only one dev”, what’s can be critical for project and can not be changed, slow times of reviews and idea of having not so much time, cause “big inflation”, “let’s wait 40 years” is funny reasons tbh, we are not even speaking about privacy, maybe Mwixnet project by @scilio became unimportant for some members already? :slight_smile:

1 Like

There’s no agenda on my end and I don’t know anyone from OC that is pushing any agenda on CC. I just observe what’s happening and sometimes share my thoughts to help. The “only a small part of it can be used for Grin” was hinting that we all have a life outside of Grin that, more often than not, takes the majority of our free time.


My opinion is to not destroy CC but to involve more active members with basic knowledge inside to increase it from education inside and awareness of community around at same time to involve more people at tech to avoid such things:


It should be necessarily for them to work with community like write topics and create discussions about different parts of protocol and privacy itself.

As per @davidtavarez we saw how decreased his activity at previous period, sure not everyone can be politic and developer at same time and it could be just one bad period at his life, but it was red flag that bad example is infectious from my point of view.

1 Like

Go ahead and get involved, I heard that 2 CC guys stepped down.

First, I’m in the best period of my life, but that’s the point, I have a life. Second, I’ve said it too many times, I’m more than tired of recycling the same topics over and over again, and I’m not going to waste my time on that stuff. When I discovered Grin it was fun, now Grin is far from fun.

I wonder why…

This is what I do not understand. Most people think they have the right to demand to others what to do and how to do it. It won’t work that way, ever, no matter how much it is repeated. People should do whatever they want with their time. There was never a “Grin Academy” where one went to learn about Grin. There is enough information published for people to download, print it out and sit down and study on their own.

Well, @Anynomous has been very consistent in his thinking all along.

@vegycslol is not wrong about that, I don’t know the context of the screenshot, but that statement is not wrong, you don’t want people who don’t know how Grin works making decisions that might affect Grin. No one will take their car to a medical doctor for mechanical work. To put it simple: the opinion of people who do not know how to do anything should not weigh one iota when it comes to making a decision. I know it’s an awkward conversation.


As community leaders they could have at least some responsibility for community they decided to lead, education is part of community building to increase awareness, being just key-signer is too easy task, but your position was clear way before as we saw funding is not changing anything, so we came where we came:

I want people to be involved more as Grin is not private but privacy project, even some old members I noticed still have Windows installed on their PCs and using Gmail, its just base things, so what we are talking about, I mean educate not only people outside, but people inside the project.

That can be good to start for all :slight_smile: :


1 Like

Real. I was damn right.

The passive attitude could only work in a large and vibrant Community, full of motivated people. One can build that large and vibrant Community, or one can simply withdraw, but to build it you have to work for it, and then the conversation is much different.

CC’s position is not wrong per se, but the conditions necessary for it to work do not exist, have not existed, and I doubt that they will exist for a long time. So the healthy thing to do is to accept reality, and return to a safer position until better conditions exist.


You did the best possible thing for Grin: Creating an easy to use lightweight mobile wallet everyone can have available at all times having his smartphone at hand. It really is brilliant. The one path forward for Grin is being used by people. Having it on their phones and making transactions. There is nothing more to it. Everything needed to do so is already here.

In my opinion we do not need an active CC, we need active users.

So feel free to buy my hand drawn Jared Leto Painting. :rofl:

1 Like

If only it could be so easy as we still have problems with peers and initially sync on Android (issue created year ago), Tor is just part of pain for better privacy.

And before that there was no Android app, and before that there were other problems, and before that bridges were not supported, and limited to advanced users, and before that many other things were not included, and before that there was not that friendly user interface,… but wow, you just found out that development is a continuous process. Congratulations, you won a cake :birthday:

The issues with peers will not longer exists btw, I invite you to follow the next release Grin++ v1.2.9 · GitHub binaries can be tested too already. But that’s another conversation.


So, back to the point: dissolving CC.

How can we test community support for this? Is their a poll or voting process we can start?

Will be cool to check, good to know you not dropped project, respect :call_me_hand:

1 Like