Suggestion to capped supply Grin forks

Otherwise we better switch to Beam now :wink:

No one more so than me:-)

This suggestion is NOT for Grin. Grin shall forever be 1 per second…

10 Likes

Interesting proposal. Personally I think Hard Forks to explore different models are perfectly fine as Bitcoin and Grin are in its essence also just experiments. Some people might become more interested in this hard fork since it makes Grin feel more interesting as store of value althoug arguably the difference is purely psychological.

My support for the linear supply model of Grin will stay the same as I think it is a vital requirement for a fair distribution of Grin and a requiremt for any money to be used on a day to day basis. I always feel conflicted when spending Bitcoin since I want it to be used as day to day money while knowing hodling would be the sensible thing to do from a financial point of vieuw.

If we are prosing hard forks to look at alternative emission rate’s, I personally would be more interested to see how a linear inflation rate would work.
So for example 5% inflation every year. For example the after the first 2 years the emission rate becomes N * 2^0.0704 with N being the number of Grin coins in circurlation.
Or better written:
First 2 years, 1 Grin/sec
After two years 63115200 * 2^(0.0704 * i) with i being the number of years
-Even better would be to write it as ( i -2*31557600)/31557600 where i is the number of seconds meaning the inflation rate is really fixed and adjustedd every second instead of on a yearly basis. And a further improvement would be to adjusted the emission rate in the 2 years to organically to go towards for example that 5% inflation rate instead of suddenly introducing it after 2 years.

Anyhow, just a thought. Does anyone know if there is cryptocurrency existing with a similar emission shedule, so a fixed inflation rate, or do I have to wait for a Central Bank Digital Coin (CBDC) with a fixed inflation rate? It would be of course better to first have a non governamental controlled cryptocurrency to explore such a model.

dogicoin think like grin
although I’m not sure about it but their cryptocurrency is very stable

1 Like

@Pirat I might become a Doge coin lover yet.
In my ideal world, there would be a dominant cryptocurrency with a fixed low inflation rate (2%-5% of which a part goes to miners PoW (e.g. 2%), and a part would go to PoS verified node owners by KYC (e.g. 3%) to fight the inequality in the world (a bit similar to Pi coin in that sence). Such a coin would have to have some privacy features installed, or atomic swap, to allow for exchanging to cryptocurrencies like Grin for real privacy. Just by giving every person the same fixed percentage of the total coins each year, it would make it so much harder for the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer since their holdings would inflate. This would also be desirable from a economic perspective since inflation does stimulate economic use of a coin. In a way this would be similar to a universal basic income while fighting inequality by being proportional to all the wealth out there.

1 Like

@tromp made a post on bitcointalk forum that shares his view on constant inflation a few days ago

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5090427.msg54603099#msg54603099

1 Like

doge coin is a very stable coin, it’s like real money, even the binance developers themselves don’t understand how it works)
The fact is that the number of coins + volume + price, self-stabilizing.
If the extraction of coins were less, then it would not work at a high price, doge coin was created to trade from 1 satoshi to 2 satoshi and this is a decent percentage of profit.
Therefore, glasses for buying and selling are huge, even if the price is +1 - 1 satoshi.
If the developer hadn’t scored on this coin and continued to work with the code, I think doge coin would be in top 3

In the long run, they don’t earn doge coin, they trade from 1 satoshi + and from 1 satoshi minus.
doge coin is very stable and it is almost impossible to lose money.

Cool, somehow intuitively that is what I would expect from a low inflationary coin. This means we can expect the same stability in price for Monero and Grin on the long run.

You mean the price fluctuates maximally a factor 2?

I do not understand what you mean with these parts? Sorry, can you explain that a bit more?

while the coin price is small, people trade it in large volumes, due to this they get a large percentage of how much the price is small, and due to large volumes, the price is stable.
If something is removed from this, then everything will collapse.

well, to be more precise, the coin will constantly be thrown back and forth and it will not be stable.

grin could be stable too, but there aren’t many coins there, so I wonder what will happen, I think it will be thrown back and forth.

1 Like

Agreed!
In order to be a currency, it has to be inflationary. Specifically inflation rate should be equal to long term economic growth plus coins lost.
That’s somewhere between 2-5%

2 Likes

it is only 45 million coins…
How many years to pass for Grin to reach RVN 6 billion supply?

There is just no enough demand for Grin yet.

Only miners and tech savy people can use grin without hesitation.Average joe has usability problems.They are very coy.And they bail ad go at 1st 2nd problem with wallet or exchange.And when someone talks to them about Grin,they fud the project…rumour spreads…a facit circle…

2 Likes

i think that this could be a good idea. i really think that grin have the right vision, but in order to achieve it, we will need more adoption. and unfortunately people will not invest in that coin for the moment, or even in 10 years.

Grin will remain a good technology, but can’t become a product unless it gain value.

don’t you think that your fork idea (new currency) can be a store of value for grin ? like GOLD/FIAT.
i think that we will need a store of value in crypto, and also a real currency to spend.

i think that if grin had enough support from the bitcoin community, old whales and early adopters, Grin can come to life. otherwise we will need a new currency, a new fork just to attract investors and create a connexion between grin and this new currency.

1 Like

Tons of people have invested in Grin, including myself, and will continue to do so.

Coins gain and lose value all the time, often drastically, apart from stablecoins.

Anyone is welcome to fork Grin and try a different emission. That is what my suggestion was for.

I just happen to believe that 1 per second will be seen as preferable in the long run.

4 Likes

oh yeah, it is not possible to change anymore now. And maybe in 10 years people will call Grin OGs genius because Grin is the favorite coin of many. but what we need is the twitter account with 15k people to interact with the community in order to grow the community and have new people involved

1 Like

@tromp i’am also investing in grin and it’s the only coin i’am investing in, however people are more attracted by making money on crypto than investing in a vision or a technology. hope there will be more people like us. for the moment they are just betting.
@Kurt you are right about the twitter account, also a lot of articles you can find on google are old and no news you can find easily. i will launch a french blog where i will try to do my part.

3 Likes

Bonne sourire!

(20 char filler…)

2 Likes

I often thought that it may be a security Problem for a POW-Cryptocurrency if the Marketcap is much higher than the Replacement cost. For Bitcoin the Factor (Marketcap)/(Replacement cost) tends to get higher and higher. If it gets to high I expect a real asset whale to short sell to the Replacement cost an then come around with a new blockchain that has more work but was cheaper to mine. So I think for a healthy POW-blockchain the factor should not get much bigger then 1. It could get achieved if significant of work is done by the incentive of the fees or if the emition rate grows with time.

For grin I think it could be possible to stay at relative low coin price but have most of the mining incentive by the fees. Because of the infinite supply there’s less incentive in hording grin, instead just using it.

But for the fading Ming algorithm, I have not fully understood if it could be an other kind of Kill-switch, Factor (Marketcap)/(Replacement cost) in the Future. Or is it a brilliant Idea to keep the Factor low forever.
I could not find what I read month ago, about technical details, pros and cons about the Ming algorithm changes.

I want to spout a silly but fun idea that just came to mind. However, sometimes those are the best there are. Besides some lightness might be good for some of the Grumpy Grin bashers out there. I want to make them Grin again. Here goes:

If there would be a hard forks for Grin, why not go Full Monty with the Harry Potter lore and have some fun with it.
Call it Harry coin, Potter coin, owl coin (OWL), Hedwig, Hogwarts coin, Patronus coin, Platform 9 3/4 coin( PLT934), Hermione coin, Weasle coin, Hagrid, coin, Gringots, Dumbledore, Muggle coin… well you get the idea, anything that directly makes it associated to Harry Potter which is loved by billions of people around the world. Since one of the ‘criticisms’ by some was that there is not enough publicity for Grin, I think this might actually give a whole lot more exposure and traction to both the new coin as well as to Grin. Take Raven coin for example. The coin benefited from the association with Game of Thrones and the lore around it. Sure, Grin also has some Harry Potter lore going around, this is however not directly obvious for the uninitiated. Preferably this association should pop directly in to mind when just reading the name of the coin. Such exposure can also help Grin get more exposure in a fun way since of course people will read that it is a fork of Grin, the original ‘Voldemort’ coin :wink:.

2 Likes

I would not want a fork to appear, so I suggest making a slow-motion bomb. :slight_smile:

O, I do not need a Hard Fork either. But if one occurs, lets just have some fun with our ‘Muggle coin’ (or any other fun name) while promoting Grin indirectly. Especially with the change in emission suggested by @tromp, the technical change would be cosmetic (although philosophically meaningfull) while providing ample marketing opportunities.