现在的社区如同一盘散沙，没有果断的处理方法。这就是社区自治的原因吧。我是一个持币者，我不希望看到有这样的结果，因为你们是grin精神的传递者，希望社区早日回到正轨，今天一小步，明天一大步。感谢你们的无私的奉献，谢谢！
4 Likes
OC’s desire on this issue should also be asked. If the OC wants it, it will be a logical solution to migrate from CC to OC but if the OC doesn’t quite want it, it could be a wrong decision.
It will be the main enhancements that will move Grin forward. In this regard, the OC better understands the demands and manages the fund better. However, some of the people inside CC will always be uncertain, and their decisions are more debatable.
The biggest truth is that people who know how Grin works, who have more knowledge than others, are always better off control the fund.
Also, community can give more attention to @davidtavarez thoughts on this. He’s a developer inside CC, it’s best positions to evaluate this subject well.
In the interest of decentralization, the OC would rather not see funds returned. That would only be a measure of last resort if the CC sees no way to safeguard the funds.
11 Likes
Well, that squashes this then.
2 Likes
I think the idea of lehnberg is good:
- Return the funds to the anonymous donor
- Burn the funds
For current suituation, when the fund can’t be managed well, a fund reset is a choice to let the project itself grow organically.
@noobvie That would only make sence if the CC sees no way to keep the funds secure, which is not the case. We are in the process of contacting candidates for a CC election and setting guidelines and requirements for selecting candidates and organizing the election for this and future CC elections.
Better to do it proper than to be in a rush. Especially since we started with a council of 4 appointment members and 2 elected members. We now move to a fully elected council which requires extra guidelines, requirements for candidates and fail safes to protect the CC funds.
The donors didn’t donor so we burn their donations. Giving back would also not be in their interest, because they didn’t donate for the purpose to get a smaller amount back than they have donated.
They donated so the donation can be put in improving grin. We should stick to that. If it’s done via CC or OC doesn’t matter as long as the money transforms into improvements 1) of the protocol or
2) the corresponding wallets (native or Grin++)
2 Likes
What’s the protection against new elected members stealing funds?
Find the draft guidelines and member requirements here:
Any input is welcome since this should be a framework for the decades to comes, the above is just a rough draft that requires more editing and input from the other council members.
1 Like
IMO protection is to allow OC members to be a part of multisig, we can not meet every person IRL or ask him to pass KYC to handle responsibility at this, what if bad guys will come to CC members houses, we can not trust, but verify, as for me I can trust only @tromp.
That is why we have a multisig. An attack would require 4/6 council members to collude, which is highly unlikely, especially since they are all known by their true name. Only trusting a single person, even @tromp, who I completely trust, is much more risky if you ask me (e.g. 1$ 
). If there is a concern of trusting new members with the keys, it could be arrange to have a backup with an OC member, but to be hones, I do not think this is needed since when there would be doubts, such a person would not be allowed on the CC.
I think we have to be much more concerned about attacks on governance from the outside. For example, by bashing, or trying to frustrate governance by draining council members motivation and time.
Time will tell, after such attack existence of CC will be really under the question. Forewarned is forearmed 
In the interest of decentralization, the OC would rather not see funds returned. That would only be a measure of last resort if the CC sees no way to safeguard the funds.
We can still keep the funds secure until we find a way on how to proceed and workout the current restructuring.
1 Like
A thought just crossed my mind, in case Grin reaches $0.01 and github code not developing. Should we see the project failed?
What should we do with remaining fund or ‘burn’ it by buying all GRIN markets?
I wouldn’t consider a price of 0.01$ a fail, grin is currently not a good store of value because of high inflation so it makes sense that there’s more selling than buying. One day, when inflation becomes low enough, it might become a good store of value. So it’s too early to judge, the price doesn’t really change that imo. I don’t really see a good reason to burn people’s donations.
2 Likes
I would never take the price as a proxy for the success or failure of a project. Even if development at some point would be paused, that would not change the intrinsic value of Grin as a project in any way. The reality is that Grin after it last hardfork already was a much better product than most coins out there will ever be. Most projects keep on adding functions purely in the hope to boost the price of their coins or tokens instead of sticking to their “raison d’être”. Grin does not need more use cases or features, it just needs to excel at being sound money, and it already does a great job at being just that.
All other things like a Rust GUI wallet, contract flow, unified payment proofs, multisig, PIBD, those are just nice to have features on the long run since they improve the user experience.
2 Likes
Grin as novelty is more fun,
Grin as toy is even better,
I just love watching this coin,
Watching the coin is fun
Rewrite this
More as hobby is more fun
Price doesn’t equate grins success.
1 GRIN = 1 GRIN
We just watch, I would seriously buy bitcoin
By design, Grin will remain so for a good amount of time. This gives developers and users the freedom to experiment in a lower stress environment. Things will get more intense as inflation drops
Anyways, we should define a metrics to know a failed experiment, right? Like number of running nodes or the total hashrate network or one of vision of the left creator gone…