The forum has an updated Code of Conduct

Please see here:

More detailed meta-discussion about the update in the pull request and the accompanying issue.

Forum thread that triggered the update: GRIN code of conduct.


What’s the TL;DR of the diff?

So you’re taking this so far to police people’s posts via mediums beyond the grin ecosystem (e.g. personal Twitter account posts)? And users can be banned from grin-controlled mediums because of a tweet?

1 Like

I liked the post because i thought the main change was changing the title of the code of conduct of the official github from “grin code of conduct” to “code of conduct”. my bad to not have read it. Just read it, and to say it in a few words, i am sad of what happens (what i could see in the content of the new CoC, in particular the section “Scope”). i hope we ll find the right way together somehow

1 Like

Sorry, you can’t say this anymore. It’s a derogatory comment toward the new code of conduct.



What if we instead of mocking the CoC, take it as an opportunity to improve our communication and make it more productive? :wink:
Making fun of things that try to improve the ecosystem isn’t nice. Take the time to think through your actions here and keep in mind that some people took hours to write this down with the best intentions in mind. If you’re going to disagree at least do it in a productive way and one that is not so incredibly insulting to their work.

Come on guys, instead of just endlessly complaining let’s all just try to be better :+1:


It’s unclear what the punishment for threatening to destroy the core team is. It’s also not immediately obvious where the new CoC stands on glitter “bombs”. :laughing:

In all seriousness, it seems I dropped the ball on this one. I either never saw the PR that introduced this change, or if I did, I forgot all about it. I don’t follow grin-pm closely, since I would’ve expected anything this impactful to have come through as an RFC. So I apologize to everyone for not fighting against this change before it was enacted.

It very much feels like this change is the exact opposite of what Kurt was suggesting in the forum post that led to this. It’s quite puzzling that anyone can go from “let’s remove the word ‘Grin’ from the title since it really means council-moderated spaces” to “here’s the new policy that the entire Grin community must abide by or else”. I have not discussed this with the other grin hub admins, but I sincerely doubt we will adopt this CoC in that Telegram group, or otherwise limit ourselves as a result of it. And I’m not about to quit “trolling” on discord anytime soon, so if my interpretation of the CoC is correct, I may as well embrace my inevitable permanent ban from “the community”.

As for constructive criticism:

  1. Avoid calling anything official, like “official social media” or “appointing official representatives.”
  2. Refrain from presuming authority over “all community spaces”
  3. Listen to the Grin community, which has been very vocal about wanting less centralization, not more.
  4. Delete the whole darn thing and pretend like this never happened

I’m not even sure where to go from here. I regained a (very) small bit of optimism about Grin as a result of the recent discussions that showed promise of re-evaluating whether our current governance model is best for Grin, but it seems that optimism may have been premature. The forum post failed to get any meaningful participation from those who currently hold the power (with the exception of Daniel, who graciously initiated the discussion), and as this CoC shows, the discussions were apparently not enough to convince those in power that more centralization is undesirable.

After repeated discussions about the problems with grin governance, dropping this bomb was either a gross error of judgement or a direct insult to those of us who have tried so hard to make Grin a strong, decentralized community, void of any “fiefdoms”, “emperors”, or “bosses” (0002-grin-governance).

To be honest, I’m not real sure that there’s a path forward from here. The whole coin sort of feels like a lost cause at this point. It definitely no longer represents any of the principles I value. It seems obvious that what the small group of community leaders [sic] want for Grin is very different than what the rest of us want. I honestly don’t know how to operate in an environment like that, and the endless politics has taken a toll on every single one of us (on both sides, of course). It has been utterly exhausting trying to maintain some semblance of decentralization in Grin, but it seems like it was all for naught. We’ve lost the fight.

My only hope is that someday Grin will find a way to repair itself, and years down the line, you’ll all point at my entry in and laugh about how embarassingly stupid I was for thinking this was coming to an end. If that day ever does come, I encourage you all to enjoy yourselves. Revel in it at my expense.


In my point of view, this CoC doesn’t apply to the global Grin project but only to the Rust implementation ecosystem. As least if we believe that Grin is still a decentralized crypto-currency.
All other Grin related projects can and should have their own CoC.

I dont know what to tell you if you think threatening to ban me from this forum or keybase because I tweeted something is an attempt to improve the ecosystem… That is incredibly destructive and utterly ridiculous. It is extremely difficult to reason that this CoC change was thought out with good intentions.

Better is Daniel and others to STOP pretending they get to choose which opinions get to be expressed and how.


If you think that is the case then 100% of references need to explicitly state Grin-rust or something like that. The grin community is not the rust implementation, it is the entirety of grin. However, the CoC explicitly extends the realm to all external channels like social media and not just discussion areas controlled by the powers that refer to the rusty trombone implementation of grin

1 Like

Looks like it concerns only “official” Grin(-rust) representatives as far as I understand it :thinking:

I am all in for some moderation. Should have done more on the telegram as well. But be careful. The regulations as written above could easily be a set-up for a cancel-culture. What is insulting for one can be the truth for another. What you think is off-topic might be relevant for another to make his case. Rather then a new innovative way to moderate, improve and maintain forum quality this looks more like directive management lacking the right vision or policy. Let aside how one would define an ideal forum.

1 Like

That is why I asked. It appears as if you broke a rule say here in the forum or on keybase and ended up at 2. Warning then your tweets would become fair game and you could get banned for tweeting about your warning incidence

This thread has a few odd takes, I’d like to make a couple of clarifications.

  1. This is an update, to a previously existing code of conduct.

  2. The previous version of the code of conduct was not forced upon other independent Grin communities, like the GrinHub telegram group or one of the many Discord servers. This one will not be either. Nobody wants to do that, and even if they did, I don’t see how it would be possible to do so in any case. They are welcome to adopt their own code, no code, this code, or some other code.

  3. All the work and discussion for this work effort has been done in the open, including:

    Those who were interested in actively getting involved had ample opportunity to do so.

  4. Here’s what I said when I announced the work:

    I created an issue after some forum banter with kurt over the weekend. My intention is not to rethink the coc or to open up some kind of giant can of worms. More to make sure it’s up to date, and that it’s as contention-free as possible. The spirit of the CoC would remain the same.

    Which is what has been done. The previous code of conduct was derived from the contributor covenant v1.3. It has since been updated to v2.0, which is what was upgraded to verbatim. As far as I can tell, there have not been any significant changes to its content, aside from improved structure, and language. As it was no material change, it did not require an RFC.

  5. The contributor covenant has an FAQ section which might be useful to read. There’s actually an answer to a question that’s raised in this thread:

    Can I be cited for a code of conduct violation for something that I say on Twitter or other social media site?

    The Contributor Covenant only applies in project spaces and when an individual is representing a project. Your conduct outside of these situations is not governed by the code of conduct.

  6. The past few weeks discussion on how to iterate on governance is still ongoing, and is completely separate to this effort, which was kicked off almost 3 months ago.


Are you leading the fight for freedom here, or are your preaching to deaf ears? On the web there is far less downside to speaking up for what one thinks is right. Why are you the lonely voice? Actually, why would there need to be a leader at all if there is no fear of consequences?

Unfortunately I think that rather than putting up a resistance, your efforts are actually futile. You may get a like or two here on your comments, but at the end of the day even the people you are fighting for are far more indifferent to the matter than it may seem.

This situation is far too familiar, I am afraid.

1 Like

Thank you for the clarification. With the proper context that seems alright. I am not exactly familiar or comfortable with using GitHub, but clearly you did all the proper steps and I should have seen it coming. The first read really came off as a loose tool for discretionary censorship even for comments made on unrelated platforms, which of course would be troubling to hear at any time but particularly troubling in the midst of discussing governance. But I appreciate the clarification and it is reassuring that this isn’t what it first seemed and all is fine.

edit I would like to add that I was wrong and I apologize for jumping to conclusions. While I haven’t agreed with all moderation decisions, you guys have been very fair with respect to banning and have not taken any administrative actions for making comments elsewhere in the past.


You’re talking as if this place is hell. In any other community, there would be people banned for some behaviour we’ve seen, no questions asked. The reason some allow themselves to go beyond what other communities allow is precisely because there was too little modding done before. I really think you guys are exaggearating a bit here. With that said, I’m moving away from this discussion.

You’re talking as if this place isn’t supposed to aim for financial freedom, or freedom in general. Other communities being bad is no justification for having this community be bad. Your attempt to disguise your bias as complacency is unsuccessful.

1 Like

As I’ve said, nobody was banned and they very easily could have been. Yet everyone acts as if we are trapped in a horrible ecosystem…

1 Like

No, I don’t consider myself a leader of anything. But if we really want Grin to be a better money, those of us who are around now building it have a responsibility to protect Grin for all future users. Hence, the apology to all users, now and in the future, for dropping the ball personally.

I’m not at all the only one who failed to speak up when it mattered. I didn’t mean to presume it was my responsibility alone. My bad if it gave that impression.

1 Like